Mark Oaten: The Home Secretary knows that the current sentence for carrying a gun in public is seven years but the maximum sentence for doing the same with a knife is only two years. Given that both are weapons and can kill, will the Home Secretary consider increasing the maximum sentence for carrying a knife as part of his proposals?

Charles Clarke: I will be pleased to consider proposals to that effect when we debate the Bill that was mentioned in the Gracious Speech and examine specific measures. A knife is not the same as a gun but the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that we need to compare the two and ascertain whether they should be brought more in line.

Tony McNulty: The terms and conditions of service of police officers recognise variations in the cost of living through a system of regional allowances. We intend to discuss pay with the Police Negotiating Board later this year, and we will give consideration to any proposals for adjusting the present arrangements.

Tony McNulty: The answer to the question is simply that, in the first instance, it is a matter for the negotiating body to deal with these matters. I take the hon. Gentleman's point as seriously as I took that raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). The balance between the pay and conditions, and the recruitment and retention, in the home counties forces around London and in the Met, are kept under constant review. That applies to the Essex force as well as to others.

Andrew MacKinlay: Why do we not ensure that, when the Metropolitan police recruits officers who have been trained in the counties around greater London, it pays a premium to the constabularies in those counties? After all, those constabularies have trained those officers. It could be done on a sliding scale, but there ought to be some penalty or cost to the Metropolitan police when it recruits people whose training has been paid for to some extent by the council tax payers in the counties around Greater London.

Tony McNulty: I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he needs to listen. We recognise that this is a serious matter, but Thames Valley police currently has a record strength of 4,160 officers. There is still sleakage out to the Met—[Interruption.] I cannot blame anyone else for that—it is not in the brief, but entirely my gobbledegook, for which I apologise. That leakage is nothing like it was two or three years ago. Members should not charge us with complacency when the matter is being dealt with, and should not paint such a picture barely a week into the new Parliament. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, we keep matters constantly under review. Let us be clear: the Thames Valley force has record numbers of police, and as a Thames Valley MP, he should congratulate us on that.

David Evennett: The Minister is somewhat complacent on these matters. I agree with the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), as in my constituency antisocial behaviour was the biggest issue on the doorstep during the election campaign. Does the Minister agree that we really just need more police on the beat, and more police able to deal with such issues. In that way, we will get the confidence back on our streets that is lacking at the moment.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, just before the election, the Select Committee on Education and Skills published a thorough report on prison education, during which we took a lot of evidence in prisons, particularly Feltham young offenders institution, which has improved greatly in the past couple of years? There has been much investment in prison education but there is a long way to go. Will she look at our report, study its recommendations and talk to her colleagues in the Department?

Andy Burnham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. Perhaps I can pay him a back-handed compliment by saying that he would not have been my first choice of inquisitor at the Dispatch Box.
	The Home Secretary acknowledged last week that there is further to go in cutting unnecessary bureaucracy in the police force but the right hon. Gentleman must accept that a level of bureaucracy is necessary if we are to have an accountable police force that has the confidence of the public. He and his Conservative colleagues need to bear that in mind.

Paul Goggins: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is to emphasise that cannabis is illegal and can be harmful. When we reclassified cannabis to class C from class B, we wanted to accentuate the campaign against the most damaging drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin. I hope that he would see that the campaign against those drugs is of the highest importance.
	On reclassification, in March, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—in view of concerns expressed about the potential connection between use of cannabis and mental illness and emerging, stronger strains of cannabis—referred the matter back to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which will come forward with recommendations in due course.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[Fourth Day]

Charles Clarke: On consideration, the hon. Gentleman might want to withdraw the word, "gerrymandering", which did not happen. The Electoral Commission issued serious proposals on how postal voting should best be conducted, and all the main parties agreed on their implementation. We are currently examining a set of issues that arose subsequently and we will decide the best kind of legislation to introduce, but none of the issues concerns gerrymandering.
	My Department and I want to address three main pillars of activity through legislation in this House—first, police, counter-terrorism and active communities; secondly, offender management and the reform of the criminal justice system; and thirdly, immigration and asylum and identity cards. The first pillar—police, counter-terrorism and active communities—involves four proposed pieces of legislation dealing with charities, racial and religious hatred, counter-terrorism and violent crime.
	On charities, we are reintroducing the Bill that fell when the House was dissolved. It will modernise and reform charity law and enable charities to administer themselves more efficiently and to be more effective. I do not know whether the Bill will receive all-party support, but I know that the charity world is delighted by the legislation and that it found it difficult to understand why some parties blocked the legislation in the previous Parliament.
	During the wash-up at the end of the previous Parliament, we could not obtain agreement to the second piece of legislation, which is an attempt to outlaw incitement to religious hatred by amending the current offence of incitement to racial hatred. The legislation will close the loophole whereby Jews and Sikhs are covered by the racial hatred offence, but other faith groups are not. It will curb the activities of extremist groups, which could incite hatred against members of minority faiths, and it will protect those who are subject to incited hatred on the basis of religion. I know that the measure is controversial—hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about some aspects of the legislation, so it will be fully debated—but I strongly believe that it is important to put all faith groups on a similar footing and to deal with the incitement of hatred. The Bill is about stopping incitement to hatred, which is what we shall do, and I hope that all parties give it full consideration.

David Heath: Returning to the issue of knives and replica firearms, the Home Secretary will be aware that there is prolific opportunity to obtain such weapons through internet purchase. I understand how difficult it is to do something to restrict that supply, but is that something on which his Department will bring forward proposals as part of the proposed legislation?

Charles Clarke: That will be published when the Bill is published. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is entirely the right way in which to do it. We will publish the figures so that they can be analysed.
	The £1.2 billion Airwave scheme for police radios is one example of major schemes that have been delivered on time, effectively and, in fact, under budget.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate that my hon. Friend and others have such concerns. When the Bill is published, I should like her to look in detail at the range of information on certain individuals that we are discussing, which is not in fact substantial, and at how it operates. I should also like her to look at the safeguards. An enormous range of information is already held in both the public sector—on police information databases, on the police national computer and in fingerprint records—and in the private sector, in relation to such matters as financial dealings. I respect her point of view, but I ask her to read the Bill carefully, and balance those considerations against the benefits to society that would arise from it.
	As I said at the outset, I am not prepared to embark on an election campaign in the future while deep concerns throughout society about antisocial behaviour, criminal justice and sentencing, and immigration and asylum can provide fuel for irresponsible political parties. The purpose of the whole of this Parliament, and the Queen's Speech in particular, is to lay the foundations for the elimination of the problems that exist and that are perceived to exist. That is our commitment, and I hope it will be supported by Members in all parts of the House.

David Davis: Before I deal with the Queen's Speech, let me say a few words about synthetic outrage.
	During the campaign that we have been discussing, the Home Secretary engaged in three debates with me, before, during and after the publication of the documents to which he referred. Not once did he suggest that any of the documents were dishonourable or ill meant in any way. As he said, he wrote to me earlier today, and not once in his letter was this outrage mentioned. I shall therefore treat his opening comments in the way that they deserve—as theatrical rather than real.
	Let me say this to the Home Secretary: any party that publishes posters such as the two published by the Labour party before the election campaign should be very careful indeed when referring to dishonourable conduct. I will talk later about honesty of argument when we discuss the counter-terrorist legislation that the Government forced through the House in the last weeks before the election. We will talk about the honesty of the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister at that time. I will hear then what the Home Secretary has to say.
	The Opposition welcome at least three proposals in what is a massive Queen's Speech. First, we agree with some of the powers to deal with terrorism. We have been calling for an offence of acts preparatory to terrorism for some time. It will fill a loophole in the country's security and may prevent the Government from creating any more of the unnecessary, ineffective and illiberal legislation that they have proposed in recent months.
	Secondly, we welcome the measures that the Home Secretary mentioned to strengthen the charitable sector. That area needs serious reform, and the only reason that it was not dealt with before the election is that it needs very serious scrutiny. It is a complex matter.
	Thirdly, violent crime is out of control. Its growth is clearly related to drugs and alcohol. The Home Secretary made a number of sensible suggestions, which we welcome, but they will not tackle the roots of the problem.
	The Queen's Speech is heavily focused on home affairs. It is no secret why: the Government know that the British people are deeply worried about law and order. Ministers have failed and they have been found out. From immigration to street crime, from guns to drug crime, from violence to basic disorder, the Government have lost control.
	In the past, the Government have adopted a Newton's law approach to law making. For every hostile headline, there has been an equal and opposite piece of gimmicky legislation. Not every social ill demands an equal and opposite law. Some need a fundamentally different approach. What matters is passing good and effective laws and taking proper and concerted action to tackle some of the deep-seated problems that we face. When the Government set out on a course to do that and stick to it, they will receive our support. It is with that principle in mind that I will look at the specific proposals and issues raised in the Queen's Speech.

Tom Levitt: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is going down the same route that his party went down in its newspaper advertisements during the general election campaign. He is comparing crime statistics that were compiled on different bases and comparing different reporting techniques, thereby attempting to show a difference. Does he welcome the intervention by the chief constable of Derbyshire police at the beginning of the general election campaign? The chief constable wrote to all the local newspapers to put the facts about the fall in crime in Derbyshire on the record, so that no politician could fall into the trap of misleading the public—as the right hon. Gentleman is doing now, and as his party's advertisements did during the general election—by not acknowledging changes in reporting techniques.

David Davis: Yes, I do. One reason why the decision to reclassify was ill founded was that the Government did not take into account some of the evidence on psychosis that the current chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says he knew at the time. The risks of psychosis from cannabis use are serious, which is the basis of the argument. Although it grieves me to do it, I will pay a compliment to the Home Secretary who is at least reviewing the decision, but it was ludicrous in the first place.
	The new Labour Government have failed to deal with the causes of violent crime—drink and drugs—and are failing to deal with criminals. A proper criminal justice system punishes the criminals and reduces crime. It does that by taking criminals out of circulation—typically, by putting them in prison—and by deterring them from committing crime, generally by the threat of prison. It does so also by rehabilitation, again usually in prison. However, the Government do not intend to create enough prison places to cope with the expected 100,000 prisoners by the end of the decade.
	Instead, they will use community service and fines to punish criminals. Clearly such punishments do not take criminals out of circulation. Equally clearly, they do not deter, even with the prospect of the Minister of State's orange suits. Nor do they rehabilitate. The hardest group of offenders to deal with are drug addicts, yet the Government's flagship drug treatment and testing orders have had a dreadful outcome. Two thirds of those concerned have failed to complete the course and 90 per cent. have been reconvicted.
	We need to offer kids ladders out of drug dependency. At the general election, we set out a proposal to increase tenfold the number of residential rehab places. A Conservative Government would have done that. Our approach would have offered an escape from the cycle of misery that afflicts too many youngsters today. Conservative proposals would have offered a positive and constructive solution to this most terrible of problems. At least the Government are recognising the need for action on violent crime by promoting the Bill on this matter, but they are failing miserably to deal with the root cause of that crime. As a result of that failed strategy, recorded crime is up by 750,000 in the past eight years, with violent crime up by more than 80 per cent. Even where crime rates are falling, it is the result of factors beyond the Government's control.
	What the Government can control is the number of police out on the beat, yet as we saw last week from the Police Federation, more and more officers are spending more and more of their time inside police stations, not on the beat catching criminals. The Government are tying up our police forces in red tape and targets, and, as a direct result, cutting their effectiveness.
	The Government can also control the effectiveness of sentences, yet they are failing to enforce effective sentences and are instead wasting money on expensive gimmicks that do nothing to lead criminals away from the temptation to commit crime.
	Those are the practical things that the Queen's Speech could have addressed, which we could have been debating today but which will clearly have to wait for another time and another Government.

David Davis: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman something for which there is a shorter wait.
	More than a year ago, we exposed the chaos and shambles that the Government had inflicted on our immigration system. From the Government, first we had denial, then we had cover-up, and then the lid came off the whole show and a Minister had to resign. At long last, the Government are now beginning to respond to the crisis in our immigration system. We welcome some of the measures planned, but the Government's proposals for e-borders will take around five years to set up fully. That will be 12 years after they did away with extra European Union embarkation controls, and this is a time of high national security threat. That is nothing short of irresponsible.
	We welcome the 600 extra immigration officers announced by the Prime Minister in his speech in Dover, but let me remind the House that the number of failed asylum seekers had to exceed 200,000 before action was taken. The Government are in a state of perpetual crisis management and, I am afraid, they are still more prone to crisis than to management in this regard.
	This week, the Government were trumpeting their success on asylum applications, which they have managed to get down to the level that they inherited from us. That is their success. Of course we welcome the reduction, but at the same time, the number of removals has fallen for the past several quarters from 5,000 to fewer than 3,500. There is little chance that the Government will achieve their target of more failed asylum seekers being removed than arriving if that trend continues.
	Astonishingly, this Government are still complacent. In the Home Secretary's introduction to his five-year plan, he stated:
	"the system that we have . . . works well"—
	a system that has seen the cavalier disregard of the rules become the norm in the Home Office; a system that has seen immigration triple; a system that has seen the immigration and nationality budget grow from £200 million to nearly £2 billion. I hope that we never experience a system that the Home Secretary thinks is working badly.

David Davis: No, it is not.
	On "Woman's Hour", the Prime Minister said:
	"There are several hundred of them in this country who, we believe, are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts".
	Only weeks later, he was rushing through the House a poorly drafted Bill to deal with the issue—a Bill that assaulted the ancient rights of the British people and challenged the assumption of innocence, habeas corpus and the entire concept of a fair trial under British law.
	What happened to the hundreds of terrorists roaming our streets? Just before the election, we fought hard in the House over control orders. How many people, in the ensuing six weeks, were placed under such an order? Outside of those released from Belmarsh and similar secure institutions, there were none. Lord Tebbit asked the question six weeks after the Bill entered into law, and the answer was "Not one." I believe that it is the case—no doubt we will hear in due course—that in the last few weeks one person has had a control order placed on them. So much for the hundreds of terrorists to which the Prime Minister referred. Was it just convenience that they appeared and then disappeared in the run-up to an election? Terrorism is a very dangerous area in which to cry wolf. The House will be aware that, accordingly, we will hold the Government to their promise to review and replace that hasty terrorism legislation in the coming year. We will make sure of that.
	It goes without saying that we welcome powers that really will combat terrorism. Introducing laws to deal with acts preparatory to terrorism will help us to deal with people planning terrorist acts; I agree with the Home Secretary on that. I have to tell him, however, that if what I read in the papers is correct, I am concerned about the offence of condoning acts of terrorism. I should like to read to the House two quotes from persons commenting on terrorism in Palestine. The first person said that
	"young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up".
	The second said:
	"If I had to live in that situation . . . I might just consider becoming one myself".
	Do those quotes condone the acts of suicide bombers? Would those people have been charged under the new powers? Are we about to lock them up? The first quote is from the wife of the Prime Minister, and the second is from Jenny Tonge, when she was a Member of the House. As much as I have my differences with the individuals in question, I do not believe that we should be locking them up. [Interruption.] There may be some dispute, but I do not believe in locking them up.
	We must be very clear about what the powers seek to do. New Labour has a habit of making bad law to rush in pursuit of a headline, so we will ensure that all the new powers are exposed to proper scrutiny. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who is sitting on the Parliamentary Private Secretaries' Bench, should take note; she should be interested in this.
	As the Home Secretary knows, we fundamentally disagree on the provisions relating to religious hatred. I understand the Government's aims in trying to prevent religious hatred, but I sometimes wonder whether they understand the implication of their own proposals. This is their third attempt to introduce these powers, so I will repeat my objections from the previous two attempts. For centuries, the United Kingdom has had a tradition of religious tolerance and, at the same time, a tradition of extremely robust religious disputation. We live in a healthy society, in which religious freedom and free speech have co-existed to the advantage of all. These joint freedoms have contributed in no small measure to the intellectual vigour of our society. They spawned the creativity that fostered a wealth of talent in many areas, from science to satire. Freedom of speech is one of the great virtues and, simultaneously, one of the great strengths of British society. These powers will curb freedom of speech where such freedom is entirely appropriate. Unlike race, religion is a matter of choice: choice of belief, value, practice and behaviour. This Bill would sacrifice freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief for little or no gain, and we will oppose it.

David Davis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says but I disagree with him, because, in addition to the reasons I have just given relating to our society and its commitment to free speech, I believe that the Bill will have the opposite effect to what the Government intend on relationships between religions.

David Davis: The hon. Lady is right. When the legislation was introduced, I argued that it would act as a recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda. All it would take would be one popular individual—perhaps a young Muslim—to be made subject to a control order or, in an extreme case, put under house arrest under the legislation to ensure that not only that individual but every member of their family, every friend and everyone who knew of their case became a potential recruit for radicalisation. One of the reasons why this country has survived for centuries without revolution is that we have been able to maintain our freedom and tolerance throughout that period. The countries that have adopted the most aggressive stances at the expense of civil liberties are often the ones that have suffered most.

David Davis: When I responded earlier about the possibility of some compromise, I talked about putting into law the Crown Prosecution Service method. That was in mind of some extremist parties' behaviour and in dealing with them. Beyond that, I do not see a way of doing what the Government are trying to do that would preserve the rights and freedoms of British people of all creeds and cults.
	In term of things that are difficult to make judgments on, we come to ID cards. I suppose that it is a subject of importance sacrificed for little or no gain, given the proposals. We have been here before. When the Government last brought their proposals before the House, we set a number of tests. The Home Secretary seems to think that they are fig leaves. Is purpose a fig leaf? I understand that, with this Government, purpose may be a fig leaf. There is a potential cost of £10 billion or £20 billion. Is that a fig leaf? Really. Are the fundamental rights and privacies of British citizens a fig leaf? The Home Secretary's Department has the most unmitigated record of wreckage of IT projects in modern history. Is that a fig leaf?
	The Home Secretary is unlucky because, as a Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I watched the Home Office for four years, and the right hon. Gentleman is about to hear some of the lessons that I learned. Let us start with the summary points. The points of the tests were to establish the balance or imbalance between serious principles—principles that the right hon. Gentleman agreed mattered—and the competence or incompetence of the proposal before us. It seems that the Government are asking Parliament to make a decision on a scheme that they have still not yet properly worked out themselves. The scheme is so ill thought out that it is by no means clear that the technology will be foolproof or that the costs will be controllable. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Home Office could manage the scheme. We must remember that if we depend on the scheme for our security and it fails or is subverted, we are far worse off than we were without it.

David Davis: I am having a recognition problem with somebody's identity.
	I reiterate the point. If the proposed system is built as a centrepiece of our security and it fails, we are far worse off than we were when we started.
	I have had a written intervention from the Home Secretary, which came this morning about an hour or two before business started. The right hon. Gentleman sent me a letter. Given his opening, it was quite surprising that he started "Dear David". He attempts to go through the tests:
	"Legislation must clearly define the purpose of the cards."
	He gives me a list, which he could have taken from my opening speech—no priority, no costing and no quantitative achievement. It is just a list.
	The right hon. Gentleman then goes on with whether the technology is sufficiently well developed and robust. His opening sentence reads:
	"The Identity Cards Bill is enabling legislation",
	which is to miss the point. That is because the Bill proposes to change the relationship between the British citizen and his or her Government. It is a massively important constitutional Bill; no one should be under any misapprehension about that. The point is that unless the technology works, frankly we do not want to touch it at all. However, the Home Secretary wants to introduce the Bill before he knows whether the technology will work. Since it will not work for eight years, one must ask, "Why the rush?"
	The Home Secretary's letter goes on to talk about the biometric technology and how the chief scientist will examine it. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I have received several letters from experts in this area, especially experts on biometrics, expressing extreme doubts about the viability and reliability of the technology, and the possible levels of errors, false positives, false negatives and other problems associated with it. However, as I shall explain in a minute, even if the biometrics work perfectly, there are fundamental flaws in the proposal.
	The Home Secretary's letter goes on to discuss whether the Home Office is capable of delivering such a major information technology project. He talks about how the Government use IT in all sorts of ways. The examples that he gives are informative. First, on pensions, I do not know whether many hon. Members have had problems over the past few weeks with the new card-and-chip system for pensioners, but I have. I have constituents who have not received their pension for five or six weeks as a result of the wonderful system that has been introduced—not by the Home Office on this occasion, but by a more competent Department.
	The letter goes on to cite passports. I do not know whether anyone remembers the pictures of the queues round the block of people who were desperate to get their passports to go on holiday. On one occasion, I even had a member of the private office of one Home Office Minister go to get one of my constituent's passports from the heaps of boxes in Lunar house so that she could go to her own marriage in Malaysia the next week. It was one of the most unmitigated IT disasters of modern times and was run by—guess who—the Home Office.

Gerald Kaufman: I thank my constituents for sending me back to the House for the tenth time. My obligation to them is to carry on working on their behalf, regardless of their religion or ethnic origin and to try to ensure that a good Labour Government work well in their favour.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has dealt with a number of the issues that relate to the legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech. When it comes to the issue of immigration, my constituents are grateful for the fact that the primary purpose rule was abolished. They still remember it eight years later. They are grateful for the fact that an appeal system has been introduced for visitor visas, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will maintain that.
	The problem for my constituents too often is that where the policy on paper is one that they find acceptable and attractive, in implementation it does not always work as well as it ought to do, and they have asked me, during the election campaign and since, to represent to the Government that after eight years of welcome office, which my constituents have supported throughout, the Government should get a much stronger grip on the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office so that the policies work in the way that my constituents wish them to do.
	There are two aspects to that. First, there are aspects relating to the bureaucracy preventing my constituents from obtaining what is their right. If, as I do, I have a constituent who serves in the armed forces, who has served in Afghanistan and who later this year is to serve in Iraq, it is absurd to say that because there are problems with my constituent's wife's immigration record she should go back to, of all places, Zimbabwe, to apply for readmission to this country. Where a constituent of mine has had her husband allowed, under the Government's legislation, to join her in this country and has then given birth to twins, and the husband has then violated his permission to remain in this country by leaving her and not sustaining the marriage, that constituent, who has been on the telephone to me again today, has a right to believe that that man, with no proper basis to remain in this country, should be thrown out of this country, rather than, although illegally here, obtaining legal aid to try to gain access to those babies until they are 18-years-old. I very much hope that in this Parliament we will deal with the reality of cases and not allow bureaucracy to get in the way of cases.
	Again and again—I have written to my right hon. Friend about cases even during the general election campaign—constituents of mine with work permits awarded to them by the immigration and nationality directorate, who have been offered jobs by employers who wish them to take up those jobs, are being sent back to countries of origin such as Bangladesh in order to obtain the right to remain here even though they have work permits. I have several such cases now, and such absurdities should be stamped on by my right hon. Friend.
	On the other hand, I strongly believe that where people are blatantly violating the immigration rules the Home Office should act on that and remove them from the country. At a recent surgery, a woman from Iran came to me with a letter from the Home Office that said, in bold and underlined, "You must now leave the country." She had no intention whatever of leaving the country and said that she had come to me to ask if her National Asylum Support Service payments could be resumed. My constituents, of whatever ethnic origin, think it unjust that people who live in accommodation provided by the National Asylum Support Service should insist on remaining here when they have no right to do so. They want such people to be thrown out of this country and immigration law to work firmly, but they also want people who have a good case for remaining in this country to be treated in a sympathetic and practical way.
	My constituency is a dispersal constituency for asylum seekers. Some of those people have no right to be in this country because their applications and appeals have failed—such cases may involve people who have failed to gain access to an immigration appeal tribunal, who have failed in their appeal to that decision and who have failed the human rights appeal, too. People who have exhausted every single immigration process are remaining in this country and doing their best to live on my constituents' taxes. I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that although good cases are treated well, it is about time that bad cases were dealt with firmly. The people of Gorton want people who will work and contribute to the economy to live in Gorton. At the same time, some people simply want to batten on to my tax-paying constituents, and I cannot see why my constituents should put up with it.
	During the general election, the Conservative party dealt with immigration in a disgusting way—when I was walking along the street, a man of African origin said to me, "They talk about me as though I cannot hear what they are saying." Those politics operate on the basis that large numbers of people who are citizens of this country or who have the right to remain in this country are somehow beyond the pale. If the Leader of the Opposition had substituted, "Jews", for, "immigrants", when he discussed immigration during the general election, people would have said that he was conducting an anti-Semitic campaign. Anti-Semitism is bad and racism is bad, and the Conservative party conducted the nastiest, filthiest campaign of my political life on that issue. What is more, it conducted the campaign on the advice of a Commonwealth immigrant, who contributed nothing to the economy and who, having pocketed his money from the Conservative party, is returning to the country from which he emigrated.
	My constituents, of whatever ethnic origin, are not racists—they are fair and decent, and they want people to be given a chance. At the same time, when people exhaust every single process in the Government's decent legislation, are told to leave and do not do so, I expect my right hon. Friend to deal with them, including those who ignore deportation orders. Immigration policy must be fair and firm: in these years of Labour Government, I look to my right hon. Friend to make sure that the fairness continues, that the firmness is enforced and that all of my constituents, regardless of ethnic origin, have confidence in this Government's immigration policies.

Mark Oaten: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which got off to a slightly grumpy start with the Home Secretary's analysis of the election campaign. I do not intend to go down that route. I hope that my party generally tried to fight a positive campaign. Frankly, we would have been unable to mount such a poster campaign even if we had wanted to, as we do not have the money—that is a heart-breaker. However, we are very good value for money in terms of the number of MPs we delivered for the amount of money that we spent. I would say this about the campaign: politicians must sometimes be prepared to argue things on the doorstep knowing that they are unpopular and try to change individuals' views on the basis of their strongly held opinion instead of testing out those views in advance in market research and opinion polling and adjusting one's poster campaign and message. That is an important principle that this party will stick to when it fights election campaigns.
	As for the range of measures in the Queen's Speech, Liberal Democrat Members will give our support to some; we believe that the Government's long-term intention is right on others, although the way in which they are trying to get there is wrong; and we are fundamentally opposed to the rest. The charities Bill is long overdue. We welcome it and will give it our support; it is a pity that it fell because of a lack of parliamentary time.
	On religious hatred, I share many of the concerns that were articulated by the shadow Secretary of State, particularly on trying to ensure that we protect freedom of speech. There are ways around this. We certainly support what the Government intend to do, but we need to consider whether we can additionally deal with concerns to do with racial hatred. Some of the measures that were discussed in Committee need to be looked at again. The Home Secretary's response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was helpful. Considering the blasphemy laws as part of the review is a constructive way forward. We will work with the Government on this, but as things stand we are very uneasy about what is being suggested.
	It is welcome that, after the 40 or so hours that we sat when we debated the terrorism legislation, the Home Secretary has kept his promise to bring it back and reconsider it. I am very proud of the role that my party took in ensuring that when it came to balancing the principles of civil liberty with ensuring that this country is safe, we and our colleagues in the other Chamber fought strongly to ensure that civil liberties were protected. At no point during the passage of that legislation did I feel that Liberal Democrats were suggesting anything that would make this country less safe from a terrorist attack.
	I am pleased that the Government are returning to the idea that was discussed during that debate concerning new measures on acts preparatory to terrorism. As we argued then, the best way to deal with that is to have new criminal offences and take people through the proper criminal procedure. However, I am worried by press reports suggesting the creation of other measures to do with condoning terrorism. That will be difficult to judge and gets us into the same difficult territory as religious hatred. I am nervous about that and would want to see the detail of what exactly the Home Secretary has in mind.
	I am disappointed that, if the press reports are true, the Home Secretary is not looking at the question of intercept communications. We made a powerful case for considering the way in which other European countries have made phone tapping admissible in court cases, and I hope that the Home Secretary will still leave the window open for including that in the detailed measures that he brings forward in the autumn. Although I accept that intercept evidence would not have helped in the Belmarsh cases, it may be useful at some point in terms of having a proper criminal procedure.
	We will want to probe the Home Secretary on the current regime of control orders because it is unacceptable that Parliament will not be given regular information about how many people are being held under them. We want to ensure that that information is given to Parliament not as and when the Home Secretary decides to announce it.

Andrew Gwynne: I am most grateful to be called to give my maiden speech in today's debate.
	I am only the second Member to represent the Denton and Reddish constituency, which, being only 22 years old, is still a relatively new political creation. The previous Member, Andrew Bennett, had represented both this seat and, before that, the former constituency of Stockport, North continuously since 1974. I am privileged to have known and worked alongside Andrew Bennett for a number of years, and I consider him not just my predecessor by a real friend and comrade. He was a first-class constituency Member of Parliament for both Stockport, North and Denton and Reddish, and will certainly be a hard act to follow. Indeed, it was a testament to his hard work in the constituency that at every election he fought in Denton and Reddish there was a swing away from the Conservatives towards Labour. That is some political achievement.
	With Andrew Bennett, you always knew where he stood. I did not always agree with Andrew's stances, but he had—sometimes to the dismay of the Whips Office—strong views, and he stuck to them. In over 30 years, he never swayed from his beliefs. He is a real man of principle.
	In Parliament, Andrew served in the 1980s as a Front-Bench Opposition spokesperson on education. More recently, he served as co-Chair of first the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and then the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions—a post that he happily shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Most recently, he chaired the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. He was extremely well versed in the rules and procedures of the House. He was a true parliamentarian. He was also—in fact, he still is—a keen rambler, and I know how proud he was that this Labour Government had finally secured key legislation granting the right to roam throughout our countryside.
	I shall also briefly pay tribute to another former Member. Before 1983, much of what is now Denton and Reddish constituted the main part of the Manchester, Gorton constituency. Until 1983 the MP for that constituency was Ken Marks. Although, sadly, he is no longer with us, Ken is still held in very high esteem throughout much of Denton and Audenshaw.
	Before entering Parliament in a hotly contested by-election in 1967, Ken served for many years as a local councillor for the Denton West ward on Denton urban district council. For the past nine years I too have served as a Labour councillor for the Denton West ward, on Tameside metropolitan borough council, and I am very privileged to have entered the House by following in Ken Marks's footsteps.
	Let me explain to Members who are unfamiliar with the constituency that Denton and Reddish is in eastern Greater Manchester. It straddles the metropolitan boroughs of Tameside and Stockport, and contains not just the towns of Denton and Reddish but the strong communities of Audenshaw, Dukinfield, Haughton Green, Heaton Norris, Heaton Chapel and Lancashire Hill. The constituency nestles firmly between the Pennines and the bustle of the city of Manchester.
	A 10-minute drive in one direction takes one to all the delights of the city centre, and another in the opposite direction leads straight into the Peak District national park. Although mine is an urban seat, we are blessed with the Tame Valley, a linear country park. It runs throughout the constituency, following the River Tame, one of the two tributaries of the River Mersey.
	Denton and Stockport were once the main centres of hat manufacture in the United Kingdom. Sadly, hatting has all but died, but the beaver is still Denton's mascot, and of course we still have three pubs called the Jolly Hatter. I am not entirely certain whether it was the effect of the mercury or the beer that made them all so jolly.
	Thanks to this Labour Government, the constituency that I have inherited is a far better place than it was in 1983, when my predecessor was first elected for the seat. Back then the area was blighted by poor housing, high unemployment and declining industries. Now, thanks to massive investment, that is beginning to change. Unemployment, at 1.9 per cent., is below both the national and the regional average, and the new deal has given real hope to hundreds of young people. Major new shopping developments have opened in Denton town centre, and the completion of the M60 Manchester orbital has brought massive inward investment into both Tameside and Stockport.
	Unfortunately, some of the more inferior constituency profiles have failed to catch up with the dramatic changes that have taken place under Labour—so much so that my Tory opponent referred to poor housing, high unemployment and declining industries throughout his campaign. Thankfully, that was not a picture that my electorate recognised on 5 May.
	It is the issue of communities that we are here to debate today, and I welcome the Government's crime and disorder measures in full. However, I particularly want to focus on housing, a subject to which both Andrew Bennett and Ken Marks referred in their maiden speeches. Again, a lot has changed since Andrew Bennett raised that issue on 12 March 1974. Reddish in particular has benefited from a 10-year housing renewal programme, which has greatly improved many of the older terraced houses in the area. There has been a fantastic conversion of the listed Houldsworth mill in Reddish, and now other fine mills in the town are set to be regenerated into smart new apartments. In the Tameside part of the constituency, major investment is being put into social housing through stock transfer, although the criticism has been that for many tenants, the pace of change has been slower than they expected. Nevertheless, the decent homes standard will be met by New Charter Housing, and its investment programme has made a big difference to the areas that have benefited so far.
	House prices throughout Denton and Reddish have rocketed under this Government. Indeed, Dukinfield was highlighted as a "property hot spot" in a recent Halifax survey published in The Times. Although that is good news for those with a foot on the property ladder, it is starting to have a major impact on first-time buyers. I fully welcome the proposals outlined over the weekend by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend shared equity. That will have a positive impact in my constituency, and I look forward to supporting the measures when they come before us.
	Despite those positives, there are still some areas for concern. First, there is the increasing problem of absentee private landlords. There is an issue, particularly with older terraced property being snapped up as an investment to be rented out privately, and either tenants are unable to get in touch with their landlord to get repairs done, or neighbouring residents are unable to contact the landlord to report antisocial behaviour, which is a growing problem.
	The other issue is the need to stop market failure spreading out of east Manchester. That has been a real issue over the past decade throughout much of eastern Manchester. The Government are to be congratulated on their efforts to stabilise the situation there with an injection of massive investment through the regeneration company New East Manchester. The problem for my constituency is that it falls just outside that regeneration area. The risk is that while the market is stabilized—and, I hope, the trend reversed—within east Manchester, things will start to slip on the fringes of the constituency, where similar housing exists but without the benefits extended to the regeneration areas adjacent.
	Those are some of the issues that I wish to pursue in Parliament. I also wish to return to one other piece of Ken Marks's unfinished business—the issue of ground rents and chief rents. My constituency is one of only a handful of areas where chief rents are legally established. Despite the fact that people are freeholders, someone else can charge an annual fee on their land. I have to say, through my experience as a councillor, that some of the tactics employed by some of the rent charge companies leave a lot to be desired. However, thanks to Ken Marks, people can buy out their chief rents by applying to the government office. Unfortunately, the same is not true for those subject to ground rents. They are still subject to some of the bad tactics—some would go as far as calling them scams— employed by the rent charge companies. I want the rules to be toughened up, so that those bad practices are stopped.
	I said on election night that it was an honour and a privilege to represent in Parliament the area where I have always lived, where I grew up, went to school and am now bringing up my own family. I genuinely believe that, and restate my pledge to do my very best for all the communities of Denton and Reddish.

Michael Meacher: I accept that, and shall come on to that subject.
	The generality of the Queen's Speech has much in it on which we would all agree, but I find it a little piecemeal. It is rather a patch-and-mend programme over a wide area of policy, instead of possessing a commanding theme or embracing a clear vision of society. Another concern is that in the absence of such a vision, there is a complete omission of many proposals that would address some of the fundamental problem areas in society. Indeed, some of the content of the Queen's Speech might even make those areas worse.
	My first point is about accountability, which I realise is contentious. It was raised at the start of the election campaign, but not pursued. It is not a dry constitutional issue, because it underpins all the other decisions that are taken across the board. We cannot go on repeating episodes such as what happened with tuition fees, foundation hospitals, genetically modified foods and control orders, on which the Government either did not consult or, having consulted, proceeded to take the decisions that they intended to take all along. We cannot again be taken to war on the basis of a vote the day before a war starts, and be denied any debate on it and its aftermath for 15 months, and then given only an Adjournment debate, without any substantive motion or a vote. All that ground is well known, and we need a new set of agreed procedures in the House to make such arrangements impossible.
	I hasten to say that in this Parliament, with its much smaller majority, none of us is seeking confrontation, but that depends on a more responsive leadership. We need a new style—more collegiate and genuinely consultative. Frankly, however, that will not happen unless Parliament bestirs itself. We need a new cross-party parliamentary commission to examine every aspect of parliamentary accountability and make recommendations. Its remit should include the role and powers of Parliament in holding Ministers to account, in choosing membership of Select Committees, in appointing specialist committees of inquiry, and in tabling motions for debate and vote on the Floor of the House, as well as completing reform of the House of Lords. Those are all fundamental if Parliament is to regain its rightful place in the power structure of this country.
	My second point is that if the Government are to construct, as I hope they will, a new, modern and dominant social democratic consensus as their memorial, they will have to do a great deal more about inequality. It is true that child poverty has been reduced, that pensioner benefits have been significantly increased and that working families are better off as a result of working families tax credit. All that has been made possible by the Chancellor's sound management of the economy. However, it is also true that inequality has sharply increased. It is unacceptable that one fifth of our population is below the poverty line when hundreds at the other end of the spectrum take home several million pounds a year. In particular, the national minimum wage is set much too low, and the flagrant tax-avoidance devices of stock options, bonuses and so-called fringe benefits need to be dealt with.

Michael Meacher: That is an important point. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that the Government—and the Chancellor in particular—have improved the quality of life and the income of hard-working families, that there has been a substantial uplift, and that poverty has been reduced. That is certainly true, but my objection is that inequality has continued to increase because the gap between the poor—although they are fewer in number and they have a bit more—and the rich is still being increased by the enormous and soaring escalation of incomes at the top. Both problems need to be addressed. One reason why there has been a switch to the BNP is because working-class families feel that they are not getting enough, or a fair deal in society. Things have improved, but not enough.
	Thirdly, there is, inevitably, a balance to be struck between protecting civil liberties and safeguarding the security of the state, which has been mentioned. However, since 9/11 that balance has been pulled in an uncomfortably authoritarian direction. Quite apart from the removal of the right to silence and restrictions on jury trials, the Government seem—I hope that I am wrong, but this is what is reported—to be returning to Algeria those acquitted after the Bourgass trial, including one person who had been granted asylum. They are almost certain to face torture, and may face death, which is reminiscent of the awful American practice of "rendition", I think it is called—or outsourcing torture.
	In the case of the much-trumpeted ricin plot of January 2003, it now emerges that there was no ricin and no plot, only a convenient pretext to bang the anti-terrorist drum just before the Iraq war, and perhaps even to claim the need for ID cards. Above all, however, in the case of control orders, which the Government are obliged to reconsider, there is a much better way of reconciling individual rights with state security.
	I propose that where terrorism, or at least acts preparatory to terrorism, are alleged, all the evidence relevant to the case should be made available to the suspect unless the judge is convinced—on the basis of advice from the security services or the Home Secretary, and on proper grounds of national security—that it cannot safely be made available. That compromise, for which, of course, there is already an effective precedent in the form of public interest immunity orders, would protect human rights and ought to be acceptable to the Home Office. I hope that the Government will reconsider that later in the year.
	My fourth concern is how the so-called public services reform will be pursued. All too often that is a euphemism for more privatisation, deregulation and outsourcing. It is worrying that the first speech of the Secretary of State for Health emphasised strongly the transfer of 10 to 15 per cent. of operations to the private sector, when the consequences of that are so clear: it means skimming off the most lucrative procedures while leaving the more difficult and expensive cases to the national health service, and it means draining off doctors and resources from the NHS—not for a saving, which we could understand, but at greater cost.
	That policy agenda is not—I repeat not—about choice when, in the case of housing policy, tenants who choose the fourth option, to stay with their own local authority, are denied that choice, and when, in the case of transport policy, the majority who want rail franchises to be transferred to the public sector are denied that choice.
	Lastly, we need to learn the real lesson of Iraq: we have become far too close to the US line. We need a foreign policy bottom line driven by our fundamental British interests and by our commitment to the United Nations, and not by US interests. As proof of that, we need an early statement from the Prime Minister that under no circumstances will we give support, even indirectly, to any military attack on Iran, whatever the Americans may do. I hope that all those points will be taken.

Adam Afriyie: As an ardent campaigner for decision making to remain in this House, I am delighted to address the House today. I must thank the retiring Member for Windsor for his continuous hard work over many years. It is thanks to him that the doors of the Edward VII hospital remain open; it is thanks to him that the doors of the Helena Day ward remain open. I must also thank him for his good work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and its continued work in Belarus and Tibet.
	I must also thank the members of the Windsor Conservative association, who selected and supported me more than 19 months ago. It really means something to me that they have stuck with me the whole way through the hard work of getting elected. Of course, I must thank the residents of Windsor for the warm welcome that I received on 35,000 doorsteps. I recognise that many of them will have broken with former allegiances to deliver the result that delivers me here today.
	I would like to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the wonderful constituency that I represent. It has leafy hills and dales; it has great parks and lakes. It is beautiful and attractive, as are the people. I recall one particular doorstep on which I was campaigning early one morning. I knocked on the door and a beautiful young lady answered. She seemed stunned to see me, and I was certainly stunned, but also delighted, to see her—thinking that I was her boyfriend, she had come to the door completely naked. I have lost my train of thought now. [Laughter.]
	We have some wonderful schools in the constituency. One near Slough, with which many Members will be familiar, is particularly notable. We also have wonderful historic buildings. With the award given to the Fat Duck a few weeks ago it is now accepted the world over that we have the finest dining in the entire world. We benefit from internationally renowned race courses, and we have a strong military presence, with the Household Cavalry, and the Blues and Royals. We have one of the finest, grandest and most popular tourist attractions in the whole world—a symbol of our national historic heritage. I refer of course to Legoland. We also have one or two notable residents, of whom I am sure we are all aware.
	We face some challenges, too. The character of our area, our community and our neighbourhoods is being ruined by insensitive high-density development. That is placing pressure on our roads, creating queues at our GPs' surgeries and causing stress to parents who cannot find a place for their children in the local schools. We have also had the blight of flooding in recent years. In areas such as Horton, Wraysbury, Old Windsor and Datchet, the risks caused by the inadequate measures on the Jubilee river still exist. In other parts of the constituency, the challenge and threat of increasing aircraft noise remain. We have a noisy neighbour in Heathrow, which not only provides employment but brings stresses and strains with the continued noise and pollution that is created. We have some challenges, and we must rise to meet them.
	Like many Members, I come from a fairly ordinary background. When one comes from an ordinary background, one is determined to make something of oneself. I worked hard at school, I made it to grammar school and then on to university. I have worked hard in business for many years. I am delighted that today, the organisations that I helped to start provide incomes and livelihoods for about 300 people and their families. I will continue to work hard here in Parliament, to take action on the issues that matter to us all.
	When I was being lovingly dragged up in south-east London, a thought struck me. My friends, my family and the people with whom I have worked over the years all seem to be happier when they are making decisions for themselves—when they have control of their own lives. One of the biggest causes of stress in Britain today is a feeling that one's own life is out of one's control. With my hon. Friends, I am determined that people should regain a sense of control over their lives. We have had a lot of talk today about civil liberties, and I am determined that we shall continue that push towards civil liberties, towards a country free from unnecessary interference from state and government.
	Despite the sleep deprivation during the campaign and for the first couple of weeks here in Parliament, I am thrilled, delighted, excited and elated to be here, but I am also conscious of the onerous responsibility that we bear as Members. The House has my commitment that I will take action; I will not only campaign for the residents of Windsor but take action on the things that matter to us all. In the years to come, I want all of us to feel a sense of control over our lives, a sense of self-confidence in who we are and, as far as is possible in a civilised society, a sense of freedom to enjoy our lives in the way that we choose. Above all, I want all British citizens to rediscover a sense of pride in being British. I say without hesitation or hindrance that I am proud to be British. I am proud to play a small role in this debate, and I am proud that under your watchful eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will play a small role in the future of our great nation.

Edward Leigh: Indeed.
	If a serious discussion took place with the members of the focus groups, and if they were led through the issues as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary led us, and having been asked the pertinent questions, would 80 per cent. of people still support ID cards? However, that is not the point. If ID cards are wrong, we should oppose them.
	I do not believe—here I pay a tribute to the Liberal party—that the Lib Dems were harmed by their opposition to ID cards. I was vociferous in my opposition to ID cards. I do not remember anyone in my constituency saying, "I'm not going to vote for you, Mr. Leigh, because you oppose ID cards." People want leadership. They want vision. They do not want government by focus groups. They are fed up with that. That is why we have so much apathy. That is why only 35 per cent. of people support the governing party. That is the lowest percentage supporting a Government party of any country in the world, or certainly in Europe.
	I agree, of course, that the Conservative party did not do much better than that. We should have done much better. Perhaps we had also been listening too much to focus groups. Perhaps we should have had a bit more vision and determination and less of a managerial style. Perhaps we should have worked out what really we believe in—and we believe in the empowerment of ordinary people in choice, freedom, tradition and the nation, in all those finest Conservative values. If we have the determination and the guts to put those values forward, I believe that a much higher proportion of the population will support us.
	Apart from the fact that there is no theme in the Queen's Speech, I am worried that the Government seem not to know in which direction they are heading. They realise that the public sector is not performing. For their first eight years, they gave us a blizzard of targets. They seem now to be retreating from that approach, which is that the man in Whitehall knows best. They seem also to be at the stage in which the Conservative Government were between 1992 and 1997. They are starting to talk more about the internal market. They are creating city academies, which seem similar to the proposals that we were advancing in our last term of Government. Do they know to where they are coming?
	I am worried also that the Government keep on making proposals that we spend hours debating but that have little coherence and there is no determination to implement them. The prime example is control orders. Were we not in the Chamber all night, or was it two nights and two days, discussing them? As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, how many of those orders have been implemented?
	We shall spend hours discussing religious hatred. I am dubious. I believe passionately that our country has been built on religious disputation on strong arguments. I do not believe that there is any call for such legislation. It is a cynical measure to try to secure votes in one section of a community. I believe that it will be rammed through the House by whipping, with little real support. Furthermore, I believe that, in the end, it will make virtually no difference to the present situation. Indeed, the legislation might cause more harm than good.
	I would like some coherence in the Queen's Speech. I would like to see it based on sound principles of local action and local choice. A blizzard of Bills will come from the Home Office. I have a brief from the Law Society and I spent most of the morning trying to plough through it. I tried to understand the Bills that will be coming before us.
	If we really want to get to grips with law and order, we should do what they are doing in New York. We should elect a police commissioner, a politician, and give him or her real control, free of the dictates of national Government. It is staggering what Mayor Giuliani achieved in the four after his election in 1994. He cut the murder rate by 60 per cent. Robbery and burglary were reduced by 67 per cent. The number of police officers in New York increased from 29,000 to 40,000. That was local action. The mayor did not need Bills going through Parliament. He did not need 45 Bills in one Session. He was just a man who was put in control. That is what we need.
	That is already happening in this country. There is Ray Mallon, a former police superintendent. He was elected by the good people of Middlesbrough as their mayor. He said that, if he was put in charge of the police and did not cut crime by 20 per cent. in his time, he would resign. In fact, he cut crime by 27 per cent. He is now the elected mayor of Middlesbrough. He is coming forward with good old-fashioned Conservative policies.
	Once, I stood as the Conservative parliamentary candidate in Middlesbrough. I lost by 13,000 votes. A Conservative has no more chance of being elected in Middlesbrough than does a Trotskyite in the Lincolnshire wolds. In Middlesbrough, however, a good conservative has been elected—that is with a small "c" because I do not know what his politics are, and that does not matter—who is coming through with good sound policies that the people want. These policies are based on zero tolerance and more police on the beat.
	If we could only have the courage in the House not to bring forward year after year more and more criminal justice Bills and more and more interference but to introduce one simple measure to return real power—real empowerment—to local people, that would make the crucial difference. Indeed, that is all that we need to do.
	The same applies in health and education. We must empower local people and allow them the freedom to send their children to the schools of their choice. We must allow heads to run schools and get back the school discipline and pride that we need. The same applies to the national health service. That is what the Conservative Queen's Speech would have been. Sadly, we did not have that opportunity, but the time will come. Increasingly, even the Government will realise that targeting has its limits. The man in Whitehall does not always know better. We can aim higher and achieve more, and the next Conservative Government will do precisely that.

Susan Kramer: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech and trial the fashion of orange suits for community service. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) on his maiden speech. As he was speaking, I could hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jeremy Browne), who is also a new Member. My hon. Friend was at the same school, in the same year and in the same class as the hon. Gentleman and echoed everything that he said. I did not ask my hon. Friend whether the word "shifty" also applied.
	Following the convention of the House, it is my pleasure to praise my predecessor. That is easy for me because my predecessor was Jenny Tonge, as all hon. Members know well. Jenny came to the House with a background as a doctor intending to make a career in women's health, and she certainly spoke on that matter with great frequency. In the end, given the vagaries of politics, she ended up as our spokesperson on international development. It was her work focusing on the humanitarian consequences of war and suffering, and talking about Palestine, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq, with which she made her reputation. Some people say that some of her remarks were divisive, and I did not always agree with what she said. However, I learned a lesson from Jenny that I intend to be a model for everything that I do in the House. She was not afraid to be independent or to speak her mind. I do not think that she ever understood what spin was about. In that way, even when people in my constituency disagreed with her, she earned respect. I found respect for her across all political parties in my constituency, and I see from the nods and expressions of hon. Members that she earned the same kind of respect in the House.
	Jenny is of course going on to another place—she will speak for herself. I hope that she will not find it the prison that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) implied. He seemed to think that she might be caught up in some of the legal changes proposed on incitement to racial hatred. His words were an interesting warning that we should take to heart.
	It is also my privilege to praise my constituency. Hon. Members will note the irony that Richmond Park is named after the one part of the constituency in which there are virtually no voters. However, the constituency captures both the old Richmond and part of the borough of Kingston—north Kingston, to be precise. For people in north Kingston, it is quite difficult to be part of the Richmond Park constituency. They try to understand why they have been included in the area because they have relatively little relationship with the other half. One of my tasks is thus to try to ensure that I represent both sides.
	The areas have a common background due to their ties to royalty. North Kingston was the home of Saxon kings. It is also an environmental place and is the home of one of the biggest green fairs in the country. It has a growing attraction as a place for young families, especially, to live and make their futures. It has a strong history of good primary and secondary education. Richmond also has a royal connection. Queen Elizabeth I died in the old Richmond palace and King Charles II put the enclosures around Richmond park. There are royal ties to Kew gardens, which is not only one of the greatest botanical gardens in the country, but recognised globally as a world heritage site.
	We are an area of villages, greens, common and communities. The River Thames runs through the constituency. I recommend that anyone who has questions about the efficiency of government come to the Public Records Office at Kew and examine the Domesday Book, a cause of many visits to the area.
	The description of Richmond Park as a leafy suburb is one that we listen to with a strained expression. Although the area includes many of significant wealth and prosperity, we also have people who live in deprived homes and neighbourhoods. We have behind some of our doors genteel poverty. It is easily overlooked, but it is extremely real to those who live there. We have many people who live on council estates and former council estates for whom wealth and prosperity are not the daily reality that they face. Because our area is so often dismissed as leafy and prosperous, their needs are often not recognised by central Government. It is to represent those people and their needs that I stand in the House today.
	Like everywhere else, we have a certain amount of crime. We are two of the safest boroughs in London, but to people who are the victim of antisocial behaviour—in parts of our community that is not an infrequent experience—that matters just as much as if they were living in inner London or in a community up in the north-east. The attitude that the area is such a safe place has become an excuse that we must deal with. It means that we do not have policing that matches our needs, we have not been able to roll out the safer neighbourhood teams in the way that we need to, and we suffer particularly as people across London discover that we are an area with relatively little protection compared with our neighbours. Crime has begun to travel, as people come across the bridges into our communities because we are seen as a soft target. That must raise issues for me and other hon. Members.
	There is a perennial issue for us, which Jenny mentioned in her maiden speech. Her predecessor, Jeremy Hanley, mentioned it in his maiden speech, and his predecessor, Sir Anthony Royle, also spoke about it. I refer to the blight on our community from the ever-expanding reality of Heathrow airport. A new lobby group has been formed to promote a third runway at Heathrow. On behalf of my community, I will fight that with every ounce of energy that I have. This is not a party political issue in my constituency. Every political party shares those views, and so does every level of government because we recognise the needs of our residents for a decent quality of life and their right to a decent night's sleep and to be outside in their gardens from time to time without being drowned out by the noise of aircraft. We will go on fighting that battle. It is my ambition that my successor will never have to mention it in what I hope will be her maiden speech, because we will finally have dealt with it in this Parliament.
	As I draw to a close, I express my thanks to the various old hands present in the Chamber, who have had the forbearance to sit and listen to maiden speeches. For us this is a gentle beginning; for them, it must be a desperate test of their patience. We all appreciate it.
	The last issue that I addressed, Heathrow, picks up on a topic that I hope to follow in the House—the need to find a way to reconcile the importance of environment and sustainability with economic development, prosperity and growth. That subject, which needs to be dealt with in a serious way in legislation and in debate, is one that I particularly want to pursue. I say that on behalf of my residents. Like many others who have spoken today, I have the great pleasure to say that I am speaking to represent my neighbours and friends, the voluntary groups that I have worked with over many years and the businesses that I hope I have assisted, and to represent everybody of every political colour in my community. I thank the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make this maiden speech.

Daniel Kawczynski: We in Shrewsbury have a bit of a record already. We have a town cryer who is 7 ft 2 in tall, and at 6 ft 8½ in I am the tallest ever Member of Parliament, so I hope that that height will enable me to catch your eye in future debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition, my surname, which is of Polish origin, is very difficult to pronounce, but you did so splendidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I was in business, many of my colleagues said that I must be mad to think that I would get into the House of Commons with such a name, and that I should change it to an English name, but I refused to do that simply because I am very proud of my beloved grandfather, who is no longer alive. He was a great Polish patriot and he and many other Poles fought with the British during the war. Before he died, I promised him that I would never change my name. If I had done so, I would have sacrificed something special.
	I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, the Labour Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury, then Liberal Democrat Member, then Labour, Paul Marsden. I gave a great deal of thought to what I could say about him. But I can genuinely say that I always found him to be extremely polite and friendly, and the handover of files has been done professionally. I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next.
	Shrewsbury is the county town of Shropshire. It is an extremely beautiful and historical town, with 600 listed buildings, a Norman abbey, a medieval castle and a Georgian crescent. We are also very much a town of flowers. Percy Thrower was the parks superintendent in Shrewsbury for 28 years, and he has certainly left an imprint on our town. We take the Britain in Bloom competition extremely seriously, and I pay tribute to all the members of the committee who work tirelessly to ensure that Shrewsbury puts on such a good display every year. We also have one of the most famous flower shows, the Shrewsbury flower show, which is renowned not just throughout the midlands, but throughout the country.
	Shrewsbury is surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside in England, with the Shropshire hills, and it is very agricultural. The West Mid show takes place in Shrewsbury every year and we also have the Minsterley show. We even have the Wroxeter vineyard, which produces lovely Shropshire wines, and I hope to convince the Catering Committee to stock some of them in the near future. Representing such a rural seat, farming is a key priority for me, and I shall be scrutinising the Government on their future agricultural plans.
	The Royal Shrewsbury hospital is also very important to me. The League of Friends, a local charity, has written to me to highlight its concerns. It raises millions of pounds every year to buy necessary equipment for our hospital. Its volunteers work extremely hard and provide a lot for our hospital, but they are concerned about the hospital's £19 million debt. It fears that, if not addressed, that could lead to cuts in services or staff. The Government have focused greatly on the reduction of debt to third-world countries, and I applaud them for that, but I hope that they can show the same generosity to my hospital, writing off its debt so that it can progress without such a millstone round its neck.
	I recently asked the chairman of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS trust what was the one thing that would benefit the hospital over the next four years, and he said unequivocally "Payment by results." He said that the hospital was efficient and that if the Government introduced payment by results more quickly, it would benefit by millions of pounds every year, so that is a matter that I shall raise.
	The Government have given autonomy to Wales, so the Welsh Assembly, just across the border, has very different policies from those of England. Therefore the Powys health authority pays a different charge for every patient who crosses the border to use our Royal Shrewsbury hospital. That difference means a £2 million deficit for the hospital every year. We welcome Welsh patients who come across the border to use our hospital, but I shall be urging the Secretary of State for Health and others on the Treasury Bench to make the Welsh Assembly look again at its policy of paying different rates for its patients, because that adversely affects English hospitals all along the border, not just the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. Those debts have led to car parking charges, and we now have to pay each time we visit the hospital. Senior citizens who frequently visit relatives there have to pay £2 each time they leave their car there. That is something that I want to get rid of.
	I am very keen on getting a direct rail link to London. Shrewsbury is the only county town in England that does not have a direct rail link to our capital city. Such a link would be extremely important to both tourism and business investment, and I shall be pressing the Secretary of State for Transport to help me to achieve that.
	Shropshire is a relatively prosperous area where house prices are going through the roof, making it difficult for young people to get on to the property ladder, and that is a huge issue in Shrewsbury. The Government have set a target for my council to build 500 affordable homes in the borough in the foreseeable future. Today I spoke not to Peter Nutting, the leader of the council, because he like me is a Conservative politician, but to one of the key officers on the council to obtain an independent view. I asked him what he needed to help him to provide affordable housing, and he said that in April 2003 the Labour Government took away the local authority social housing grant. That is the single measure that has made it more and more difficult to provide affordable housing. I shall be asking why that grant has been taken away and I shall be fighting to have it reintroduced.
	Shrewsbury is situated on the River Severn and so experiences terrible flooding. In 2000, the Prime Minister came to Shrewsbury and promised us lots of extra money for flood defences. I am sorry to have to inform the House that very little progress has been made on that front, so I shall be pressing the Prime Minister on that. However, I do have one ally who is a constituent and close friend of mine. I have had tea with him on a number of occasions and my wife and I have been invited to dinner soon. His name is Leo Blair, and he is the Prime Minister's father. I hope that during the next four years Leo Blair will help me to ensure that the Prime Minister always remembers Shrewsbury and helps me to do the best for our beautiful town.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first contribution in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on his excellent maiden speech—no pressure there then!
	Tony Banks is a hard act to follow. He is flamboyant, funny, quick-witted, scathing and unique. Before he entered this House, he was a prominent member of the Greater London council—he was its chairman when it was abolished. In 1983, he was elected MP for Newham, North-West, which subsequently became West Ham. He and I are both immensely proud to have inherited the seat of Keir Hardie, the first Labour MP.
	During his time in Parliament, Tony was appointed Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister's envoy for the bid to host the 2006 World cup—we all know that those subjects are close to his heart. Tony is not afraid of controversy: he is warm, generous and often humorous; he is vegetarian, a republican and a Chelsea supporter; he is one of Parliament's staunchest supporters of animal rights; and he is a proponent of the anti-fox hunting and anti-vivisection movements. Tony's friends are only too aware of the problem that he faces when his cat brings something in from the garden—which furry animal should he support?
	Tony has not been lost to Parliament. On 13 May, it was announced that he is to be made a life peer, and I hope that he will be as effective an advocate of social justice in the other place as he has been here. Perhaps his elevation is an omen for West Ham United football club, which will hopefully also be elevated to another place—the premier league—next Monday. Tony undoubtedly put West Ham on the map, and I hope to emulate his passion and his energy, because my constituents deserve no less than that.
	The West Ham constituency is in London's east end. It consists of Stratford, Plaistow, Canning Town, Forest Gate and Upton Park. It has good transport links and, given the imminent arrival of the channel tunnel rail link, it is a gateway to central London and the rest of Europe. During the Second World War, my constituency suffered as a prime target for bombing, and, on the 60th anniversary of the end of that terrible conflict, I think it appropriate to remember the losses and contributions made by the people of the east end.
	West Ham is now a wonderfully youthful, vibrant and diverse area—possibly the most diverse area on the planet. In the past 20 years, however, it has consistently been in the top five most deprived areas in England and Wales. In the short journey of six stops on the Jubilee line from here to my constituency, life expectancy for children living in those particular areas decreases by six years. Simply put, my local authority and health authority do not get sufficient funding to deal with the problems. We have inner-London problems, but we do not get inner-London money. We lose out by some £60 million a year because of an arbitrary historical boundary. It is indefensible. I have pledged to campaign hard for that money, and I will respectfully approach my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether we can bring that long campaign to a successful end.
	West Ham is not financially rich, but it is rich in talent and ability. It remains a place with many needs, but it presents massive opportunities. Many, I hope, are about to be realised. Before I look to the future, I want to highlight one clear regeneration success story in my constituency, which, I suggest, is due to the use of a bottom-up regeneration process rather than a top-down approach. Twenty years ago, Green street, Upton Park, was dying on its feet—the two exceptions were West Ham United, which had its best ever league season in 1986, and, sadly, the local jobcentre. Then a few local traders, who were mainly Asian and African, spotted an opportunity and took a risk. At first, the trade was in food products or fabrics that retail chains did not stock. That has gradually changed, and now the main business in the street is in high-value designer fashions and jewellery. Green street is a one-stop wedding shop, and people come from miles around to shop there. A supportive council and an aspiring, energetic community saw the potential and drove that project forward.
	Partnerships with communities are essential for sustained social and economic prosperity. Stratford is about to undergo a major transformation. Stratford City, the largest urban development in the country, will create an additional 5,000 homes, thousands of retail and office jobs and new health and education facilities. It is essential that local people benefit from that huge and welcome regeneration. That is why I am grateful that a Labour Government are leading at this exciting but pivotal time. The Government have demonstrated that they both understand and are committed to a sustainable communities agenda, affordable homes for our residents, real jobs for our people, health centres, schools, parks, libraries and leisure centres for our families and children. How different from the market-first, people-last strategies of the '80s, when the wealth from regeneration was expected to trickle down—the trickle-down was too paltry to create a puddle in my area.
	In order for many of my neighbours to share in the wealth created in London, we must recognise how the special circumstances in the capital militate against poorer communities. The introduction of the minimum wage by this Labour Government has been crucial, and it was an historic achievement, but given that London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, a minimum wage is not a living wage, and I would be grateful if the Low Pay Commission were to explore that issue.
	I am pleased to see that the Queen's Speech contains a housing benefit Bill. A specific London factor works against my constituents who want to work and to keep a roof over their heads. With rising house prices, come higher rents, and when that factor is coupled with the housing benefit taper, which is currently set at 65 per cent., a poverty trap is created. For every extra £1 that a person earns, they lose 65p in benefit, and I respectfully request a review to explore alternatives to that very steep taper to ensure that work pays in my constituency.
	I cannot make my maiden speech without referring to the Olympic and Paralympic games. I think that West Ham is already the centre of the universe, but it may be the centre of an amazing drama of extraordinary human endeavour in 2012. Our bid is like Kelly Holmes—poised on the final bend; striving; victorious; and first over the finishing line. The Olympics will bring opportunity in the form of billions of pounds of national, regional and local business over the next eight years and more. The Olympics will see the creation of thousands of new jobs in construction, IT, media, retail, health, hospitality, sport and the creative industries—real jobs. A visionary and aspirational Government made the bid for the Olympics, and the fact that the London Olympics Bill will come before the House after the decision in Singapore demonstrates their commitment to making the London 2012 Olympics the best ever games.
	The transforming nature of the Olympic flame provides an historic opportunity to invigorate the UK and radically transform east London and my constituency, which I am honoured to serve. As with the regeneration of Green street, and all other Green streets up and down the land, the opportunity will be fully realised, deep-rooted and sustained only if the community is engaged and involved with the physical and social changes. Local authorities are uniquely charged with that responsibility and are uniquely positioned to discharge it. I ask Ministers to ensure that the legislation fully recognises the essential role of local government in the planning, delivery and legacy phases of the London 2012 games.
	The regeneration of communities is a partnership between the different tiers of government, their agencies and the communities that they serve. The Government have consistently provided my constituents with the tools that they need to contribute to and benefit from the wealth of this nation such as the minimum wage, tax credits, neighbourhood renewal funds, the new deal for communities, Sure Start and children's centres, to name but a few. I am asking for that partnership to grow to meet the real needs of my constituents.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for listening attentively and with such respect.

Peter Robinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on an excellent speech in which she gave every indication that she will be a formidable Member of this House. It was a confident delivery of a very competent speech. I also congratulate the other seven Members who made their maiden speeches today; I am sure that the whole House will want to endorse their kind remarks about their predecessors. The House may want to consider making some adjustments to one of the camera settings, as if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) continues to stand underneath it, a fast swing round might give us a safety at work issue to resolve.
	There was some rancour at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings, and it was clear that Front Benchers were bringing some of the arguments that they had had during the election campaign into the Chamber. I have no objection to that—it is just that I do not have anybody left in Northern Ireland to debate with. It is perhaps worthwhile my putting on the record the fact that my party has now established itself as the main party in Northern Ireland at local government level, Assembly level, European level and now here in the House of Commons. Sadly, although we have nine Members in this House, we have no representation in the other place; that is an issue that the Prime Minister must resolve, especially as a lot of business commences in the House of Lords and we require scrutiny in that House as well.
	As I said, there has been something of a regime change in Northern Ireland, and it is important that the Government take time not only to respect the verdict of the people of Northern Ireland but to try to understand and to reflect the views that they so clearly expressed at the ballot box.
	In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty's Government say that they are
	"committed to creating safe and secure communities, and fostering a culture of respect."
	I want to address that on two levels—first, in the context that has a nationwide application, and then in that which has a particular resonance in Northern Ireland.
	I was first elected to this House more than 26 years ago, and I can recall from those early days the details of the problems that I was asked to resolve at my advice surgeries. I am given very different problems today. I would barely have an advice surgery now without having to deal with problems relating to neighbour disputes, gangs, low-level crime, the problems of youths causing intimidation and abusing others, and the growing problem of crime against the elderly. There has been a transformation in society, not for the better in this instance, which must be addressed. I therefore have no compunction in supporting the Government's proposals on antisocial behaviour orders, although they will need to be somewhat tweaked as experiences are gained. The Government will also find in me a supporter of the principle of the promised legislation in the Gracious Speech to tackle knives, guns and alcohol-related violence. I trust that it will be competent to deal with the problems that the Government and I would seek to have resolved.
	It will be useful if the Minister is able to tell us whether the violent crime Bill and the identity cards Bill will apply in all their aspects to Northern Ireland and, if not, the extent to which they will apply. I have no difficulty with the principle of the ID cards legislation in terms of the social liberty issues with which other Members may have difficulty—my only concern is about its workability, as there are considerable doubts as to whether it will be capable of delivering the Government's intention.
	All the measures in the Gracious Speech intended to protect and to safeguard communities require police on the ground and resources for them. Sadly, there have been massive reductions in the police service that looks after the people of Northern Ireland. That service has undergone very considerable change through the Patten commission report, but the downsizing is now such that it is scarcely possible to make the rapid response required to deal with many of the crimes that are taking place.
	If the crimes that I have mentioned are bad in terms of the general national scale, there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland that makes them more acute—the fact that there is sometimes almost support, from some sections of our community, for criminal activity. That has blurred the edges, as people seem to think that it is all right, in certain circumstances, for certain causes, to break the law. We have found that many young people growing up in our society are equally flouting the law. I urge the Government to deal not only with the low-level crime in Northern Ireland but with the organised crime represented by paramilitary groups of all persuasions, but principally, clearly, by the Provisional IRA.
	The mandate that I have in coming to this House is not a negative one—it is a mandate to make progress and to have political stability in Northern Ireland. However, that mandate can be achieved only if we build it on a stable foundation for political structures, and that cannot happen if those structures are to be built in partnership with a party that is still holding on to its weaponry, still continuing with paramilitary activity, and still heavily involved in gangsterism and criminality. Those must end. The Prime Minister, in what we now describe as the Blair necessities, indicated the standards that were required for entry into Government. It is not a question of the Democratic Unionist party attempting to put manners on the republican movement or saying that the republican movement has to be house-trained. These are standards that are accepted by the Government, supported by the Government of the Irish Republic, and endorsed by the Government of the United States. I trust that the Prime Minister will not let the people of Northern Ireland down by fudging or blurring any of the edges in relation to those standards; they are essential.
	Only on a firm, democratic basis, with completely peaceful politics, can Northern Ireland move forward. My party is willing to move forward on that basis. I personally experienced the republican movement's behaviour in December last year, when it and we were separately negotiating with the Government, and at the very same time it was engaged in the greatest bank heist in history. That indicates the mindset that we have to deal with, why we cannot fudge the issues, and why it is essential, before progress can be made in Northern Ireland, that the Government recognise that it can be made only with those parties that are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means.

Edward Miliband: I am most grateful for the chance to address the House for the first time. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is known throughout the House for his independence of spirit, which we have seen on display again today, and which I am sure would be welcomed on these Benches. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), for Tooting (Mr. Khan), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), and for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) for their maiden speeches today, and to all hon. Members for their eloquent contributions.
	In preparing my own speech, I looked back at the maiden speeches of my predecessors, and was struck by that of the radical reformer, Richard Cobden, who opened his account in the 1841 Queen's Speech debate. He told Members that it was not
	"his desire to trespass long upon their attention"—
	but it is hard to deal briefly with the case against the corn laws. Cobden's speech, in its abbreviated form, stretched over 13 columns of Hansard and was estimated to have lasted at least 50 minutes. There is no record of how many Members remained in the Chamber at the end. The time limit on our speeches today means that I shall certainly not be emulating his precedent.
	By custom and, more importantly, out of respect, I want to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Kevin Hughes, who sadly retired from the House because of illness. For 13 years, following his service as a miner, he served the people of Doncaster, North with great distinction, fighting for the place he came from and the people he grew up with. He served for four years in the Government Whips Office and, while I gather that it is hard to be a popular Whip, I know that many Members will miss his frankness, his integrity and his friendship. I thank him for the kindness that he has shown to me. In my constituency, too, there is the highest regard and warmest affection for Kevin and for his wife Linda, who so brilliantly assisted him with thousands of constituency cases. I promise my constituents and this House that I will try to live up to the standard that they set. I also pay tribute to Mick Welsh, Kevin's predecessor for 13 years, who served first in Don Valley and then in the newly created Doncaster, North.
	Unlike Kevin, Mick or their predecessors, my roots do not lie in Doncaster. I am the son of two immigrants who met in London after the war, who had strong political beliefs, to which I refer because it helps to explain why I am here today. Ours was a socialist household, in which we were brought up not just to think that the injustices of society were wrong, but to believe that through political change, something could be done about them. Of course, as we grow up all of us make our own way. But it is right to recognise that it is this upbringing and that belief which brings me to this House to represent Doncaster, North.
	Mine is a constituency that surprises those who visit it. Far from being an urban seat, as many assume, it is composed of a series of villages to the north of the town. It is a place with great and sweeping countryside, including Sykehouse, the longest village in England, the Thorne and Hatfield moors, renowned for their natural beauty, and Askern lake. We are also home to Saxon churches and the Norman church of St. Mary Magdalene in Campsall, where it is said that Robin Hood and Maid Marian were married. As strong believers in redistribution, people in Doncaster, North are happy to reclaim his roots.
	And yet, despite our picturesque scenery, the lifeblood of my constituency was, until the 1980s, the mining industry. When Mick Welsh rose to make his maiden speech 26 years ago yesterday, four major pits dominated our landscape—Askern, Bentley, Brodsworth and Hatfield—directly supporting many thousands of families. All are now closed, although we are working for the reopening of Hatfield, which could not only provide access to half of the accessible coal reserves in England but offers the prospect of a new clean coal power station. That is an endeavour in which we hope to secure financial as well as moral support from the Government. We therefore face the challenge of massive industrial transition, with all that that entails for both the economy and the community.
	Our advantage is that Doncaster, led by an elected Labour mayor, is a town—in fact, a city in all but name—on the up, experiencing the economic prosperity that is returning to the north of England. We have a new international airport, which was opened last month, one of only three UK airports with a runway large enough to accommodate the new Airbus A380. The airport is already expanding horizons, as shown by the eloquent letters that I have received from class 4 at Toll Bar primary school, which I shall visit on Friday. Our new education complex, Education City, when it opens next year, will, we are confident, become a university with several area-based campuses, including one in my constituency. We are also well served by local newspapers, although during the campaign my recognition factor suffered a bit of a setback when one campaign profile mistakenly substituted for a picture of me a photo of a brick wall.
	As Doncaster revives, we in the northern villages will not necessarily share in the prosperity without the right sort of intervention by national and local government. Doncaster, North has great attributes, with pit traditions of community and fraternity, countryside, and most of all the people—honest, fair and hardworking—but at the same time the scars of the last two decades run deep. Therefore, as befits the representative of a progressive party, I come to this House not to talk about the gains that there have been, important though they are, but to say that we still have a long way to go to create the society that we seek. Despite progress in the past eight years, Britain is still a country too unequal, too divided by class and status, too distant from the goal even of equality of opportunity.
	Therefore, what are our needs? Above all, we need a Government who will keep investing in our social and economic infrastructure. If my constituents are to get to the new jobs that are being created at the airport and elsewhere, we need investment in rail, road and bus services. In addition, people often ask me why, if the Mayor of London can regulate London's bus service so that it serves the people, we in Doncaster cannot do so?
	To tackle disadvantage at its source, we need not just our three new Sure Start centres but such centres in every area, not just because of the services that they provide but because they represent a new focus for the community. I congratulate our secondary schools on their progress in GCSE performance, but we are still a long way behind the national average, and we need the most modern facilities not just in our new academy in Thorne but in every school. And to raise participation in higher education—still less than half the national average—we need not just the new Doncaster university, but to raise the sights of young people and to keep expanding university places.
	The message that I received loud and clear in this campaign was that as we seek to revive our spirit of community, youth services must become a higher priority. What many young people on our streets told me is that there was nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. The young people whom I met are not yet cynical, nor are they without hope, nor are the vast majority troublemakers, but many feel that nobody really listens. They are tomorrow's voters—or, regrettably, non-voters. Respect is a two-way street. Many older people feel that young people do not show enough respect, but young people feel neglected by our society. If we can show them that we are listening and will respond to their needs, I am convinced that it will make an impact far beyond the immediate provision of youth services. That will be a priority for me as I try to serve my constituency in this House.
	I want to end by referring to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government, who is winding up the debate tonight. It is daunting, on such occasions, to have members of one's family watching in the Public Gallery—but worse, I feel, to have them sitting in the Chamber. As the House will know, he and I are now the only brothers in this place, although there are two sets of distinguished Labour sisters. I quickly offer this reassurance to the House: there are no more Miliband brothers to come. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that two is more than enough.
	I also want to put on record, however, how much my family owes to this country. Our father left Belgium in 1940 on the last boat to Britain, the evening before the Nazis arrived, and would have perished without the welcoming arms of a country that recognised its duty to help those fleeing from terror. I hope that I and my brother, in the service that we give in the House, can in some small way help to repay the debt that we owe to this country. In my contributions in this House, I will strive to reflect not only the voices of the constituents who put me here this month but also the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago, which led my family out of the dark times of despair to a place of hope, and me to the Floor of this House today. I thank the House for listening.

Robert Wilson: As I speak for the first time in the House, I am not only humbled but aware of the great burden of trust and expectation that has been placed on me by the voters of Reading, East. I thank them for their trust, and I promise that I will not let them down. I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) on his excellent maiden speech, made with enthusiasm for and pride in his constituency. As he could not see the Minister of Communities and Local Government on the Front Bench, may I tell him that he sat listening with a great deal of enthusiasm and pride, too?
	May I pay tribute, as is customary on these occasions, to my predecessor, the former Labour MP for Reading, East, Jane Griffiths? Jane represented the constituency from 1997 to 2005, and was notable as the first woman to represent a Reading constituency. She was a skilled linguist—the only Japanese and Korean speaker in the House in the last two Parliaments—and did a great deal to give prominence to a number of unfashionable causes. Her work for sufferers of ectopic pregnancies and male cancers has been singled out for praise from across the political divide. She was also an enthusiast for rats—although sadly, it seems, she was ultimately ratted on by her local party. Despite this poor treatment she maintained the respect of her constituents, as reflected in the supportive letters sent to local newspapers.
	Jane Griffiths was well known for her support for Crossrail and her determination to make the western terminus Reading. The Crossrail Bill is supported by all parties in Reading, East as a much needed enhancement for commuters. It is, however, a matter of great concern to my constituents that the plan is for the rail scheme to stop in Maidenhead. That makes absolutely no economic sense, as local business organisations have made clear, and could adversely affect the region's long-term economic development. For that reason, I am determined to continue the hard work of my predecessor in seeking to have the western terminus extended to Reading.
	Some years ago, the boundary commission determined that Reading should be a town of two halves. While I know less of affairs in the western part, by a curious twist of fate, I believe that all that is best, brightest, exotic and uplifting is concentrated in the east. With a fine and highly regarded university, a regional retail centre and a major technological and industrial sector, the constituency lies at the heart of the prosperous Thames valley region. In fact, I liked the area so much that I moved there more than 20 years ago, and I am still proud to call it my home.
	Geographically, my constituency includes the communities of Caversham, the bulk of Reading town centre and parts of the Wokingham district towns of Woodley and Earley. The superb biography of William Pitt the Younger by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) notes that former Speaker Addington lived in Woodley, and after Pitt's resignation, went on to become Prime Minister. I assure the House that my ambitions are far more modest, and if members of my local press are watching, I am ruling out a bid for the leadership! That should make the front page in Reading.
	Reading, East is a focal point for the information technology sector, and is proud to boast many of the top international IT companies such as Microsoft and Oracle. There is also a large banking and finance sector, represented by companies such as Prudential. I am grateful to all the wealth-creating companies in my constituency, large and small, which make such a great contribution to the wealth of the region. I will be their champion. Another major employer in the town is the borough council. Working in local government can often be thankless and frustrating, but I have been impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the many council staff with whom I have come into contact.
	Reading, East has some excellent schools, both secondary and primary, but it faces enormous challenges, especially in the Reading borough. Reading's local education authority has been categorised by Ofsted as barely satisfactory, and about 40 per cent. of parents do not send their children to its schools. Many local parents and pupils have not been served well. I intend to support the dedicated teachers and LEA staff in turning around the parts of the system that are failing. I believe that Reading can learn much from the excellent LEA in Wokingham, and I hope that it will take the opportunity sooner rather than later to approach that LEA for advice and support, which I am sure will be given willingly.
	I am a parent with a child at a local school. I was fortunate enough to be able to send my child to the local school of my choice. Dozens of local parents have not been so fortunate. Most affected are parents wishing to send children to Emmer Green primary school. It is imperative for good schools, with the support of parents, teachers and governors—as is the case at Emmer Green—to be allowed to expand, and for children to be granted places at their local schools.
	I now turn to the content of the Queen's speech, and in particular to the violent crime Bill. In the past six months, Reading, East has had more than its fair share of violent crime and murder. In January there was a fatal drive-by shooting at Cemetery junction, and Members will have recently read of the brutal murder of my constituent Mary-Ann Leneghan, who was just 16 years old. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing sincere condolences to the family. What happened to Mary-Ann and her friend, who was shot in the head and callously left for dead, demonstrates that there are people who operate outside what we all regard as the norms of civilised society.
	As Members of this House we must ensure, for the sake of our constituents and of our families, that those with the capacity to commit such gross acts of evil are given no quarter. It is crucial for the police to be given support, not just in terms of funding but by the local community. I am pleased to say that that has been the case in Reading, East, where the strength of our community has meant that people have come forward at great risk to themselves to achieve what I pray will be the end result: justice for Mary-Ann.
	I am sure that the House will also join me in saluting the excellent work of the local police force. As Members may have heard, a number of arrests have been made, and we all have high hopes that those who are guilty of these terrible crimes will be punished. I cannot help feeling, however, that a sense of security on our streets will be fully restored only if the police are equipped with the necessary manpower and tools to fight and win the battle against violent crime.
	Reading is well known for the three Bs: beer, bulbs and biscuits. The bulbs and biscuits have faded in significance, but beer still plays a huge role. Like so many other urban centres, Reading town centre suffers from binge drinking and yobbish behaviour. I would like to see an extension of the experience of the London borough of Richmond, where a voluntary code of conduct has been implemented banning "happy hour" promotions in bars and pubs. Even at this early stage, the initial figures show a stark drop in violent crime in Twickenham and Richmond town centres. I was delighted to hear today that hundreds of pubs have recognised that, and decided to join in a voluntary ban on happy hours.
	I thank the House for its indulgence. I hope that I may be allowed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on future occasions, so that I can again speak up for the constituents of Reading, East.

Madeleine Moon: It is with great pride that I rise to make my maiden speech, following the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) and the others who today have made their first speeches in the House. Sometimes it is more difficult to speak late in the evening, knowing the quality that one has to follow.
	In the early hours of 6 May, I promised the people of Bridgend that I would be working for them from day one. I kept my promise and, after three hours' sleep, I arrived at Westminster to begin my induction, collecting my security pass and the beginning of what I am sure will soon become a forest of paperwork.
	During the first 10 days, I have been introduced to many Members who have told me what a charming man my predecessor Win Griffiths is. I have been told that when Win spoke in the Chamber, people knew that he would have something interesting to say and a new way of looking at the issues being debated. Win has a deserved reputation for integrity and probity, befitting a parliamentarian, Wesleyan lay preacher, teetotaller and resident of the village of Cefn Cribwr. The retirement to which Win has so looked forward will not involve simply tending his garden. He will continue to serve the people of Bridgend and south Wales as he takes on the chairmanship of Bro Morgannwg health trust, a task that he will undertake with his usual dedication and commitment.
	When the Bridgend constituency was created in 1983, its first Member was Peter Hubbard Miles, who, like me, enjoys living in Porthcawl, the finest seaside resort in Wales. Peter tried living in Spain for a while, but was drawn back to the town which, the Bridgend county borough council website informs readers, has more hours of sunshine each year than Madrid. In following Peter and Win, I aspire to be as brave and fearless as Aileen Jones, helmsman of the Porthcawl lifeboat, who last week was awarded the Royal National Lifeboat Institution bronze medal for gallantry. She was the first woman ever to receive the medal. I can only pray that the storms in the House are less fearsome than those raging off the coast of my constituency.
	To understand the Bridgend constituency, people must know that it is made up of two towns: Porthcawl, a tourist resort, and Bridgend, a business hotspot—the second fastest growing area in Wales, and the ninth fastest in the United Kingdom. We are home to Sony, the Ford engine plant, and many dynamic small and medium-sized businesses. Surrounding the two towns are several smaller communities and villages with strong personal identities. Our local people have great commitment to their communities and many make a personal difference to the quality of life of those among whom they live.
	I am thinking of people like Helena Parobij, who sadly died earlier this year. Thanks to Helena, 750 children in the communities of Pyle, Cornelly, Kenfig Hill and Cefn Cribwr have access to a range of facilities including a skateboarding and BMX park, IT suite, music room and somewhere to chill out, meet and make friends, and even occasionally do homework. Just as important, they have access to adult support, guidance and role models. At a meeting in March to discuss financial problems at the centre, Inspector Paul Lewis told the meeting that, before KPC youth centre opened in 1998, the community was plagued with rowdy youngsters drinking and taking drugs on the street. Once 750 eight to 21-year-olds had access to the centre at different times, the number of complaints decreased considerably.
	If we are to free our communities from nuisance and provide inspiration and opportunities for our youngsters, local councils must help by funding the groups that work with young people. I am sure that the House will join me in calling for Bridgend county borough council to restore the funds that it recently cut for organisations doing invaluable work with young people.
	As Bridgend has expanded, newer communities such as Brackla, Wildmill and Broadlands have been built. Partnership working is critical to making those new communities succeed. In Brackla, Gordon Taylor and the residents association work with NCH, youth services and housing association staff, neighbourhood police and local councillors to try to meet the needs of a large development, while that invaluable facility in any community—the community hall—provides a range of activities from taekwondo to senior citizens club to Welsh classes.
	In Wildmill, people such as Idris Jones, workers at the tenants and residents association, at the youthworks and community support officers have helped many to leave behind or avoid the drugs culture that made life on that estate unbearable for its many law-abiding residents. During the election campaign, it was good to talk to youngsters on the estate, who would perhaps have inspired fear in many adults with their appearance and noise, yet they wanted to comprehend politics and were eager to understand and to learn about national issues.
	The Broadlands development in Bridgend is an estate that was planned for 700 houses and now has more than 2,000 dwellings. Central to life there is Maes yr Haul primary school. Pupils at the school recently won a national animation award and learned about the lifestyle and traditions of Japan from parents of children attending the school who have come to work at the Sony factory in Bridgend.
	One of the most rigorous question and answer sessions I experienced was at Llangynwydd primary, where I had been expecting to talk with the head teacher and staff. Instead, I was introduced to 300 primary school children who raised questions about helping the world's hungry, support for people with diabetes, stopping adults smoking and finding a cure for cancer, among many other issues. Those children will be watching the outcome of the forthcoming meeting of the G8 and will be pleased at the Government's proposals in the health improvement and protection Bill. In primary schools such as Trelales, Litchard and Pen-y-Bont and the integrated children's centre in Cornelly, it was good to see parents, governors and older residents volunteering time and listening to pupils as they read, taking an interest in their community school and investing in the future of local children.
	Eight years ago, David Matthews, our director of education and leisure services, who has since died, introduced an award of citizenship for people who contributed to their community. Eight years on, the list is still growing.
	I look forward to debating the new mental health Bill with Mental Health Matters and Mind. I know that the Shaw Trust will take an interest in the planned changes to incapacity benefit and that voluntary organisations such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and Shout will want to debate the provisions of the Government of Wales Bill. As someone who has worked with vulnerable adults, I know that the protection of vulnerable adults Bill will be an important addition to legislation.
	It may have been noted that, unlike the other new Welsh Members, I was not born in Wales. My family has Scottish roots on my father's side and Irish roots on my mother's. My mother, who is 91, has developed a new addiction for the parliamentary channel on her digibox and will no doubt be watching today. My parents set me an example of community service, my mother providing nursing help and support to neighbouring families and care for my grandmother, my father an active member of the sea cadets, Fellowship of the Services and the Royal Naval Reserve. It was their example that brought me here today.
	I am also here today thanks to my husband Steve, who enticed me to Wales in 1976. Our son David was 21 last week. He is our Celtic crown having been born in Wales. Set possibly a poor example by his mother, he is studying politics at university.
	Steve and I moved to Wales when he was appointed the first warden of the newly designated local nature reserve at Kenfig. Perhaps hon. Members will have a chance to look at a video recently compiled by Ted Davies of Kenfig when they consider proposals in the commons Bill. Kenfig is now a European site of nature conservation, a site of unique biodiversity and tranquillity. It would have become a housing estate or a caravan park if Ted and his fellow commoners had not been willing to risk their homes to battle in the High Court to keep the dunes from commercial development. I know that Ted will be watching the progress of the marine Bill to ensure that it will help with the declaration of a marine nature reserve off Sker.
	Should hon. Members wish to purchase Ted's video, profits are going towards Sandville Court self-help centre, where Sister Gwyneth Poacher and her band of volunteer helpers provide support and access to a range of alternative therapies to those with terminal and debilitating illness. Without Sandville, many carers would not have coped and many people would not have faced the end of their lives with dignity and comfort. All the services and facilities at Sandville are provided through voluntary action. It is a local and national treasure.
	I thank the House for its courtesy in listening to me today. I am proud to represent Bridgend, a constituency where so many hold fast to the understanding that what makes life good are the things we share, and the glue that binds communities is the things we do for others—a constituency with so many examples of how individuals can change the quality of life for their communities, especially when given the tools and legislative support of Government.

Frank Doran: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and all the other new Members who have made their maiden speeches today. It has been fascinating to hear about the diverse constituencies and backgrounds, and I am sure that they will all make a solid contribution to the work of this House and to their constituent's welfare. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) made special mention of the jacket that she is wearing today. I do not want to make a political or a sexist point, but I congratulate her on wearing the colours of my football team.
	I want briefly to address two issues. First, I welcome the Government's commitment to introducing legislation on corporate killing. I was slightly disappointed, however, in that no Government or Opposition Front Bencher took the trouble to mention that very important Bill, which is welcomed by the trade union movement generally and by workers throughout the country. Such legislation has had a long and troubled history. In the late 1980s, a string of disasters, each shocking in itself, together showed that there was something seriously wrong with our whole approach to safety in the workplace, in transport and in public places. No individual or company was punished for any of those tragedies, yet in every case the inevitable subsequent accident investigation or public inquiry showed that disaster could have been prevented had the company or organisation involved taken steps to ensure that it operated safe systems of work within a strong safety culture.
	There is a common law offence of corporate manslaughter or culpable homicide in Scotland, and in England this offence can be committed by companies or individuals. [Interruption.] That "Hear, hear" was perhaps a reference to the amount of money that a certain individual may have made out of such cases. An individual commits manslaughter when it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they caused death through gross or wilful negligence. Under current law, there is no separate test that allows the court to consider whether a company has acted with gross negligence. It is not possible, for example, for a court to consider the various failures on the company's part and to determine whether it could be said that, in aggregation, they constituted gross negligence. Corporate guilt is entirely dependent on individual guilt. As a result, it has been virtually impossible to prosecute the larger companies.
	A vivid example of this situation emerged in the past 10 days or so. The practical difficulties were illustrated in the Solway "Harvester" case, in which seven Scottish fishermen lost their lives after a catalogue of the most appalling negligence on the part of the company's owners. The sole director of the company that owned the vessel successfully persuaded the court that he could pass his duty of care on to an experienced skipper, who died in the tragedy.
	The main purpose of legislation on corporate killing is to improve safety, to act as a disincentive to poor safety systems, and to encourage companies and others to recognise that poor safety is much more expensive in every way than good and strong safety cultures and practices. If the only result of this legislation is a queue of companies before the court that are to be punished under it, we will have failed. But I am certain that the Government will not fail, and I look forward to the Bill's introduction.We have the Bill in draft form, and although there are many observations that I would like to make, this is probably not the best time to do so, given that the consultation period has not yet finished. I am conscious that the health and safety legislation has been under review for almost as long as we have been promised this Bill. Specific provision is made in the health and safety proposals, as in the corporate killing legislation, for removing Crown immunity. However, it would be helpful if that issue were dealt with in a single Bill, rather than in two separate Bills, particularly given that such a provision ought to be introduced as soon as possible.
	The second issue that I want to discuss is antisocial behaviour. I am a Scottish Member, so the legislation that I deal with is different from that proposed in the Queen's Speech and that which the Government have passed in recent years, but the circumstances are the same. It is useful to consider how we operate under such legislation either side of the border, and I want to refer to a recent experience in my constituency and to some of the practical difficulties that I have experienced.
	The Beach boulevard, in my constituency, is a road that runs down to the beach, as Members may have guessed from the name. It is a very wide road that attracts a lot of antisocial behaviour. Such behaviour does not always come from juveniles and the yobs to whom reference has been made in the press and occasionally here today; sometimes, quite respectable people are involved. In fact, there has been a problem with antisocial behaviour in that area for more than 35 years. People want to go there to show off their motor vehicles, and 35 years ago it started with motor bikes and scooters. Now, people drive souped-up cars around, rev their engines and sometimes race. Recently, someone was convicted of travelling in a 30 mph zone at 104 mph, which is pretty shocking in a built-up residential area. These people want to show off their cars and to race, and they cause my constituents misery. Some 300 households in that area are affected, along with the business community. The Patio hotel has had a number of instances of people leaving the hotel because they just could not cope with the noise. The council, police and everyone else have been scratching their heads for a long time, trying to work out how to deal with the problem.
	In March, using new legislation introduced by the Scottish Parliament that mirrors English legislation, my police authority got a dispersal order under the antisocial behaviour legislation. It made a dramatic improvement in the lives of my constituents. I shall make one partisan point. When that order was granted, a local MSP, Mike Rumbles—I gather he is a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament—described it as "verging on the illegal" and went so far as to offer his services to the defence teams of two of those who had been prosecuted under the legislation. I am not one who likes to make slogans and to vilify without evidence, but we have said for a long time that the Liberal Democrats were not serious about crime, and the statements of Mr. Rumbles give evidence of that.
	We are now at a crucial point. One of the peculiarities of the legislation is that it is temporary. The order made in March lasts for three months and is due to be reviewed at the end of this month. It is there to give a local community respite and to give the authorities the opportunity to put in place a more permanent and sustainable solution to the problem. We have a difficulty, because no one has yet come forward with a solution and the police must decide whether there is evidence to justify a renewal.
	Tomorrow, my local authority will consider a proposal from a Labour councillor to provide a permanent solution. The proposal is the closure of Beach boulevard, the area affected. I do not know which way the decision will go, but I have seen the report submitted by the local authority roads department, the lead department in this area. The report is totally and utterly negative. We have not yet addressed the problem that we are giving temporary powers to the police—given the gravity of the powers, they can only be temporary—but the permanent solution depends on local authorities and perhaps other agencies making decisions.
	What I see in my authority is everything operating in boxes. The people who have written the report for the meeting tomorrow have addressed it as a roads issue and not as a social issue, and there seems to be no overall policy. The Government need to take a lead in this area and to work across Departments to translate that into a system with which local government can work. At Question Time today I heard a number of people criticising local authorities for their failure to act, but until we have a unified and co-ordinated approach, people will continue to have problems.
	In every other respect, I welcome the Queen's Speech and I repeat my welcome for the proposed corporate killing legislation, which is extremely important for workers in this country.

Stephen McCabe: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
	The Liberal Democrats said during the election that they would use for other policing purposes the money that would, under the current proposals, be spent on the charging base for ID cards. That is a fantasy, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.
	The Government should, however, revisit the question of charges and costs for ID cards. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system in which, under the present structure, asylum seekers are virtually being given ID cards, but we are saying that honest, law-abiding British citizens, who will co-operate with a system that the Government say is a good idea, should end up having to pay for it out of their own pocket. That is not right, and I do not think that the British public will tolerate it. I hope that it is not too late to revisit that matter.
	On youth crime and community punishment, I have a lot of sympathy with the view of Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but I do not want people punished for a fashion trend. That is ridiculous, but where commercial premises ban or exclude particular types of behaviour because they realise that those are bad for business and for honest, paying customers, they should get our unequivocal support. We should not have any doubts about whose side we are on. If someone wears an item of clothing that is deliberately designed to conceal his identity while he is planning to commit an offence, the courts should take that into account. There should be an additional element of sentencing when someone is guilty of that. We should not duck that issue.
	I do not want to see chain gangs of youngsters in orange jumpsuits up and down the country. We have seen enough of people in orange smocks being degraded by their torturers, their jailers and, sometimes, their murderers. We want to get away from that.
	What my constituents and I want is good, honest community punishment orders. I want to read in the newspaper the precise details of such orders, just like league tables. I want to know what a person did, what the punishment was and what sort of useful work in the community that person will be doing as restitution for their crime. I want to know why, in God's name, the number of CPOs issued in this country decreased by 4 per cent. between 2002 and 2003. I want to know why only 5.5 per cent. of people convicted of an indictable offence in the west midlands are given a CPO. I want to know why the figure for the west midlands is lower than for the rest of the country. I want to know why, across the country, only 8 per cent. of males and 3 per cent. of females get CPOs for criminal damage offences—the very type of offence that one would expect to attract a CPO. What happens to the third of people who breach a CPO? Why on earth are magistrates allowed to deal with breaches by means of a fine in 46 per cent. of cases, or a further CPO in 28 per cent. of cases? Such people should go to jail, but currently only 12 per cent. do. It is a disgrace. They are laughing at us and we should not tolerate it. Why do we not have league tables for parenting orders and child curfew orders? That is what the public want.
	I welcome the comments about guns that I heard today, but it is not good enough to say, as the former Home Secretary said in the foreword to the review:
	"We . . . believe that licensing of imitation firearms would be unenforceable."
	He is wrong: licensing works in Canada and Australia. If civil servants read the review, they will find that on pages 26 and 27 it describes what has been done in places such as Malta, the Netherlands, California and Connecticut. When someone is pointing a replica gun in one's face, it is not good enough to be told that the civil servants think the problem is too hard to deal with. If we are to tackle such issues, we have to get on with that agenda.

Anne Main: It is a pleasure to follow such an impassioned speaker, although as this is my maiden speech, it might be slightly more temperate. To echo what was said of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I liked the passion, but not many of the sentiments.
	It is a humbling experience to stand before the House to make one's maiden speech. Contrary to what hon. Members might have read in The Times, I am not a well preserved septuagenarian, born in 1928. My predecessor, Kerry Pollard, was extremely well known in the constituency, where he served for many years as a magistrate and as a councillor. He was an assiduous attendee at local functions. I shall support as many local functions as I can, but I shall work hard to bring my constituents' concerns to the House. I know that, as a loyal supporter of St. Albans for many years, Mr. Pollard truly was aware of its constituents' many concerns. I look forward to articulating those concerns and to speaking out strongly on behalf of St. Albans.
	St. Albans has a rich culture and heritage, and, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall gallop quickly through its history. We learn from history and the history of St. Albans has much to teach us. That history began when the Celts settled in the area: without much regard for the planning regulations of the day, they quickly chucked up a wooden town. The Romans—quick to spot an up-and-coming area—took over and subdued the natives, and Verulamium was born. Queen Boudicca took exception, perhaps because the town had sprung up without planning permission, and she razed it to the ground. However, as they are today, previously developed or brownfield sites were in high demand, and the Romans decided to throw the whole town back up again at greater densities.
	Centuries passed and, perhaps as a result of town cramming and the traffic congestion of the day, Roman civilisation declined. People started heading for the countryside. Luckily, there was plenty of countryside in those days for them to head to.
	After the Romans, the Saxons invaded. That was about the sixth century. They arrived in Hertfordshire. They took over the site and seventh century Saxons were then converted to Christianity. By the 10th century the abbot, without consulting any locals in the town of St. Albans, decided that it should be enlarged—it is always perilous to decide to enlarge any town without consulting its residents. In a move designed to superheat the area the abbot encouraged new settlers to come, tempting them with material, money and jobs. This unbalanced economic investment in one area led to the inevitable decline of neighbouring Kingsbury, a smaller settlement that did not benefit from the same drive to build and invest by the Government of the day.
	The sad decline of Kingsbury led to the town being levelled. Its inhabitants headed off to St. Albans. This was a path-finding initiative of its day. As a result, the old character buildings were razed to the ground and new ones were quickly built in St. Albans for all to fill.
	By modern standards, the St. Albans of the day was a rather small settlement. However, what people lacked in numbers they made up for in energy and spirit. The abbot and his agents ruled supreme, often imposing unfair stealth taxes, interfering in the lives of the citizens and, what is worse, micro-managing business and stifling competition. That was outrageous behaviour in its day and it caused much unhappiness. There was bitter quarrelling between the residents. St. Albans had a tetchy time of it during the middle ages.
	By 1539, Henry VIII decided that the situation could no longer continue. The power base of the abbey was closed and razed. The townspeople became independent and power was once again returned to a local level. This made the inhabitants extremely happy. St. Albans had its first charter in 1553. Less interference from above meant that the city thrived.
	If we jump a few hundred years to the 18th century, St. Albans was well established and a prosperous market town. The Government of the day had appreciated the need to develop a truly sustainable community, and much money had been invested in roads and infrastructure. The London road was built. Travel links to London were good and there were several inns and ale houses. Residents then, unlike residents today, did not seem to be troubled with 24-hour licensing. It seems to have been a pleasant place to live.
	The proximity to London and other centres of commerce meant that St. Albans was an attractive place in which to do business, and many industries sprang up locally. In 1836, the first proper police force was formed. Unlike today's police force, it appears that the force was not whisked off to other duties in neighbouring areas. It was on duty, full time, in its neighbourhood, and performed a truly high-visibility local function.
	In 1887, St. Albans was made a city. The greatest change came in the 19th century when the railways arrived. There were good links to London, which led to the rapid rise in population and the decline of the stagecoach. The age of the commuter had begun. It took until 1909 for the first buses to arrive. In some areas, the people of St. Albans would say that they still have not arrived. Local villages such as Smallford still find themselves without a decent bus service. Often, residents find themselves experiencing long delays while trying to get from A to B. That is something that we hope will improve.
	St. Albans is now a vibrant city with a growing commuter population of more than 18,000. It boasts an international organ festival, a bustling twice-weekly market, numerous historical, archaeological and heritage societies and a spectacular abbey, to name but a few examples of its charms. It is welcoming to many ethnic minority communities, which have positively contributed to the lively and attractive lifestyle that many Albanians enjoy. However, we do not lose sight of the fact that some people are still struggling to find prosperity. House prices are high and there are areas of relative deprivation and poverty.
	The city is battling to preserve the best of the old while welcoming the best of the new. Its citizens do not want their city to be preserved in aspic but they do not wish it to be swamped and turned into a faceless commuter suburb of London, devoid of green belt and quality of life.
	St. Albans' residents need hospitals and school places. They need the Thameslink 2000 so that they can get off the buses and get started, or completed, more to the point. They need funding. They do not want a £13 million deficit for their local hospital threatening the A and E in Hemel Hempstead to which they have to go. They want to be able to get to the school of their choice and for good schools to be allowed to expand.
	Albanians value their villages and their green fields. That is why I welcome in the Queen's Speech Her Majesty's Government's commitment to achieving sustainable development. I hope that it is truly sustainable development. There is support for rural communities—hopefully that does not mean railroading those communities into accepting houses that they do not want—and protection for the natural environment. There is value for the fact that we have beautiful areas surrounding St. Albans. We have natural resources that are in scant supply such as the water resource—the River Ver is in danger of drying up as a result of all the houses that may have to be imposed on the area.
	I share the aspirations of Albanians that they will have a beautiful and prosperous environment that is welcoming, with affordable housing and a truly sustainable community. I look forward to holding the Government to account if they do not deliver that sustainability, which has been promised through the Queen's Speech. I look forward also to providing a strong voice for the people of St. Albans and to defending the quality of life that they value. In addition, I look forward to moving the city towards the 21st century while keeping the best of the old and improving the new for the new residents who wish to come and settle in the area, without swamping the established residents who value its heritage.

Iain Wright: It is an honour and privilege to follow the impassioned and excellent maiden speech made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main). She mentioned Queen Boudicca, and I must say that I can see a lot of similarities. I wish her a long and happy time in the House.
	My first wish in this new Parliament is to thank the voters of Hartlepool for returning me as their Member of Parliament for a second time. I congratulate not only the hon. Member for St. Albans, but all hon. Members who have delivered their maiden speeches both today and in the previous few days. It is just a few short months since I made my maiden speech from this very spot in the Chamber. At the time I was overwhelmed by the kindness shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House, staff and officials. I only hope that I am able to show the same sort of consideration that was shown to me now that I am a parliamentary veteran of some considerable weeks standing.
	I have been in the Chamber for all today's debate and most of Thursday's, and several things have struck me: first, how young all the new Members look; and secondly, the high quality of maiden speeches made. The intake of 2005 will be seen as having a major impact on the affairs of the House and the country, as did the intakes of 1945, 1983 and 1997. I wish all new Members well.
	The focus of the Queen's Speech on safer communities and continuing to cut crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime is welcome. There is a good story to tell in my constituency. Crime in Hartlepool has gone down by some 22 per cent. in the past 11 months, which is one of the sharpest falls anywhere in the country. Burglary has gone down by a half in little over 12 months. In 1997, burglaries were at an alarming level—something like 270 a month—but the number of burglaries is now down to fewer than 50 a month. The disruption to the supply of class A drugs has increased by some 30 per cent. The fall in crime by more than a fifth equates to 2,900 fewer victims of crime in my town.
	Despite all that good news, fear of crime remains. People's perceptions of how safe our streets are have not kept pace with the official statistics. It must be said that that is largely down to kids hanging around on street corners or in shopping precincts. People going about their business who have to walk past those gangs feel extremely intimidated. The risk of actual violence or criminal activity is low, but it is likely that a person might get a bit of lip or some swearing directed at them. Younger people who walk past such gangs face a greater threat of violence than others.
	I am not suggesting that there was a golden age of youth when the rain was always warm, the sun shone constantly in summer holidays and adolescents were fully respectful of adults and authority. For example, for relaxation during the election campaign I watched "Quadrophenia", a film by the Who about mods and their battle with rockers in the early 1960s—well before I was born. It is a good film that demonstrates that youth violence has been with us for decades. I remember reading in history classes about punks, and was especially taken by the headline in the Daily Mirror at the time about the Sex Pistols: "The Filth and the Fury". Similarly, I was 18 in 1990, when apparently civilisation was about to end with the rise of dance culture and groups such as the Stone Roses and the Happy Mondays. It is a natural sign of youth that adolescents will rebel against authority to a degree.
	The difference now seems to be that there is a small hard core of youths who have grown up without any apparent acknowledgement of the rules of society—and, yes, with a lack of respect. These kids are 11, 12 or even older, and are taking the mick out of the rest of us. In many cases they are the consequences of generations of unemployment and benefits, and a lack of responsibility. They have not had appropriate parenting and are left to run amok. These kids are not stupid, but refuse to participate in the educational opportunities available to them, and that sort of attitude becomes the acceptable or fashionable stance in the rest of their peer group.
	I have seen that myself in my constituency casework—cases in which a kid of 10 is making the lives of an entire street or estate a misery. This kid is not daft. He can manipulate the criminal justice system as astutely as any Philadelphia lawyer, but I can see his life bleakly mapped out now, if his behaviour is not dealt with—breaking windows and setting fire to wheelie bins at 10, petty crime and burglary by 14, a drug habit by the age of 17, more serious crimes and a lifetime of custodial sentences by the time he is 20.
	I sincerely hope that this cycle of thuggishness can be halted by the pieces of Home Office legislation outlined in the Queen's Speech. I believe that the legislation will play a part, and I am confident that the three principles to reduce antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime—the three P's: parenting, policing and punishment—will play a major part in the detail of the proposed legislation. I shall consider each of these principles in turn.
	As I mentioned, effective parenting is the foundation stone of being a decent citizen, yet for a variety of reasons, in many communities, parenting skills are not embraced or have been eradicated. Some parents do not know the basics, such as how to prepare a nutritious meal. That is why initiatives such as Sure Start, which we as a party do not shout about loudly enough, are so vital. The proposed child care Bill, which will extend children's centres to every community by 2010, is much needed. That will give assistance to parents and provide all children up to the age of 14 with the prospect of safe accommodation in which to learn and play. The work and families Bill will increase scope for parents to stay at home with their children, and that also should be welcomed.
	But parenting is much wider than the immediate family unit. Society and its associated organisations also play a role. In the north-east, Cleveland fire brigade has initiated a young firefighters scheme, which takes kids who appear to be heading towards a life of crime and antisocial behaviour and uses the fire service as a role model for discipline, teamwork and social skills. The results are astonishing, with offending and reoffending dramatically reduced. I would like to see such an initiative widened.
	We need to be ever bolder and more radical. Ninety-five per cent., if not more, of kids are decent, but may be drawn into gangs and related antisocial behaviour through boredom. I have heard countless times that there is nothing for kids to do and nowhere for them to meet where they feel safe. I urge the Government to be bold in their third term and provide free sports and social facilities for young people. The benefits in terms of reduced antisocial behaviour, less fear in our communities and healthier children would far outweigh the costs. I would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate following the publication of the Green Paper on youth provision later in this Parliament.

David Jones: I compliment the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) on his witty and thought-provoking contribution to this debate, and the hon. Members who have spoken for the first time today. I am pleased to be called so early in this Parliament to make my maiden speech as Member of Parliament for Clwyd, West.
	My predecessor, Gareth Thomas, who won the seat in 1997, was well regarded in the constituency as a conscientious and hard-working Member. He and I are both lawyers and we are on excellent personal terms, despite the result on 5 May. He accepted his defeat with grace and magnanimity, and I wish him and his wife well in whatever the future holds for them.
	Clwyd, West is possibly one of the most diverse constituencies in the country, certainly in Wales. It is situated in the very north of Wales, and consists essentially of two parts. The northern, coastal portion is a virtually continuous conurbation stretching from Kinmel bay to Rhos-on-Sea, and there the most predominantly spoken language is English, often infused with the rich vowel sounds of Yorkshire and Lancashire.
	The southern part of the constituency is very different in character. Agriculture is still the most important industry, and the language of most of its inhabitants is Welsh. At the heart of this southern area lies the beautiful and historic town of Ruthin. It was there in 1400 that Owain Glyndwr raised his standard, starting a civil war that spread throughout Wales and lasted for the best part of a decade. Glyndwr set fire to Ruthin and only two buildings survived, one of which, Nantclwyd house, is being restored by Denbighshire county council.
	Another famous Ruthin building is Sir John Trevor house in Castle street, named after a former Speaker of this House, who in 1695 was accused of accepting a bribe from the City of London and was expelled from Parliament, although remarkably enough he retained his office as Master of the Rolls until his death in 1717, thus demonstrating that in those days at least, higher standards were expected of politicians than of the judiciary.
	Ruthin is surrounded by the glorious Vale of Clwyd, dotted with villages, whose very names—Llanynys, Llanychan, Llanarmon yn Iâl, Clawddnewydd, Clocaenog and Cyffylliog—speak to the inherent poetry of the ancient Welsh language. But lest it be thought that I represent some sort of latter-day Arcadia, I should add that my constituency has experienced some difficulties over recent years.
	The foot and mouth episode caused devastation to the agricultural and tourist industries, and recovery has been slow. Farmers still wrestle with difficult rules on the disposal of fallen stock, which are impossible to administer in practice, and the six-day movement restriction is causing severe hardship. Those are matters that will have to be addressed by the House. There are also local worries over proposals to close rural schools. The schools in Prion and Rhewl in particular are under threat. I propose to do everything that I can to ensure that those schools survive and thrive.
	The largest town in the northern portion of my constituency is Colwyn Bay, which grew up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a retirement and holiday resort for people primarily from the north-west of England. Colwyn Bay has fallen on hard times recently, although there are some signs of regeneration. Antisocial behaviour is particularly prevalent, and during the recent general election campaign that matter was constantly raised by residents, with many saying that they were concerned about going out after dark.
	I consider it outrageous that people do not feel safe on the streets of their own towns, and something needs to be done urgently. The Gracious Speech carries proposals to clamp down on the possession of knives, but I note that we already have a plethora of legislation on the carrying of offensive weapons. It would be more appropriate proactively to enforce the current legislation through high-visibility policing and more police.
	Colwyn Bay also has a significant drug problem, which has increased in recent years. The local newspaper recently reported that a white van has been seen cruising about the town selling drugs, much in the manner of an ice cream van. Not unreasonably, that report has caused severe concern to parents of children in the town. Many of my constituents and I believe that downgrading cannabis from class B to class C was ill advised. The Government are examining that decision, and I hope that they have the courage to admit that they were wrong, and reverse the measure.
	I also note that the Gracious Speech contains a commitment by the Government to
	"creating safe and secure communities, and fostering a culture of respect",
	about which we have heard so much this afternoon and this evening. That is all well and good, but respect is a process that should move in several directions—most particularly, it should move down from the top. Any Government should show respect to those whom they govern.
	I have already mentioned that my constituency is diverse. It is not, perhaps, racially diverse, but it is certainly diverse in terms of culture, language, aspiration and lifestyle. Teenage tearaways who make life unbearable for other people clearly deserve condemnation, but most young people are decent people, and they deserve our respect. We could start showing them respect by recording crimes committed against those under the age of 16 in the British crime survey, because young people are most likely to be the victims of crime at the hands of street thugs.
	Older people, perhaps more than any other section of our community, also deserve respect. Council tax rebanding in Wales has caused many of my constituents, who now dread their annual council tax bill, severe financial hardship. More and more pensioners are being forced to resort to means tests, which they find demeaning, and more could be done to make means tests more respectful of those whom they serve.
	People in the rural parts of my constituency have recently suffered not only as a result of the foot and mouth episode, which I have mentioned, but at the Government's hands through the ban on fox hunting. Their lives are far removed from those of the Hampstead thinkers who regard fox hunting as anathema. The Burns report was commissioned and then ignored, which also showed a lack of respect. It is time that the Government recognised that the lifestyles of those in rural areas are different, and that the countryside is a place in which people work and live, not simply a place of recreation for city dwellers.
	Those who face large-scale developments such as the two wind farms planned for my constituency should also be shown respect. One of those wind farms, the Gwynt-y-Mor wind farm, would be one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, while the construction of the other might well result in the felling of up to one fifth of Clocaenog forest, where it would be located. The planning regime in this country is such that local residents' representations are largely irrelevant, and a respectful Government would take into account the views of those people whose lives would be fundamentally touched by such developments.
	The legislative programme outlined in the Gracious Speech is extensive, and it affects Wales, and therefore my constituency, perhaps more than any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Wales announced with some delight that Wales had an unprecedented number of Bills in this Session, and I am sure that the people of Wales are delighted at the superabundance of legislation that is about to be bestowed upon them. That programme must receive support where it deserves it; it must be challenged, where appropriate; and it must always be carefully and closely scrutinised. I consider it a great privilege to be entrusted with those tasks by the electors of Clwyd, West.

Caroline Spelman: By my calculation, we have had 15 maiden speeches this evening, most of which I have had the privilege to listen to. It would take up most of my allocated time were I to comment on all of them, and in order not to show too much favouritism towards one Member or another, I shall not do so. I want to compliment all of you, however, on the confidence with which you have spoken, and the speed with which you have taken to the task. I have checked with one of my hon. Friends and calculated that when we entered Parliament we did not manage to make our maiden speeches until at least July. I commend you all highly. I congratulate particularly my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), on making her maiden speech this evening, and thank her for paying tribute to my colleague, John Taylor. I am sure that when he reads Hansard he will appreciate the reference to his 22-year record in this place.
	I also pay tribute to the tone with which you have made your maiden speeches. It was rather better—

Caroline Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just about to say that the tone of new hon. Members' speeches was rather better than the intemperate tone adopted by the Home Secretary in his outburst at the start of this debate, which showed little evidence of the respect which the Prime Minister has commended to all of us as parliamentarians.
	Let me start by congratulating the Minister of Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), on his promotion to the Cabinet. I wonder whether there could be two of us shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister now. I had to seek a little clarification of the roles of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Communities and Local Government, and fortuitously, this evening, I have received a letter from the Prime Minister containing a press notice explaining the Deputy Prime Minister's new roles. Apparently, he will have a diplomatic role representing the UK abroad and a formal role promoting the interests of the north across Government. That press notice, however, is dated 6 May, and my understanding from press reports this afternoon is that the responsibility for local elections has in fact passed today to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. So rather than an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, perhaps we have an office of diminishing responsibilities.
	I wish the Minister well, particularly in breaking down the silo mentality of Departments, which hinders regeneration. He could begin by simplifying the 48 different funding streams available for regeneration. He will have our support if he can encourage a more flexible approach.
	Why, after eight years in power, have the Government suddenly decided to appoint a Minister of Communities? Could it be that after four weeks of real engagement with communities, the Government have discovered that communities feel ignored, dictated to and trampled on by their zeal for centralisation? In fairness, the word "communities" did come up in the previous Parliament, mostly in relation to the so-called sustainable communities plan. The sense of being dictated to, however, was nowhere more apparent than in that grand house-building scheme. I remember visiting the Essex village of Roydon, which is faced with a threefold increase in size as a result of a decision of the unelected East of England regional assembly, against the wishes of the villagers and their local representatives. This sense of disempowerment is undermining community spirit. The word "sustainable" has been tacked on to "communities", and it could not be further from the truth for a community that is certainly not being offered a threefold increase in its infrastructure to go with the imposition of new homes.
	The mismatch between house building and the environment's capacity to cope with it is the main reason why the Conservative party opposed the sustainable communities plan. The one exception is the Thames gateway project, most of which involves building on brownfield land. The Government's plans to concrete over the south-east of England are unsustainable, as the Environmental Audit Committee has made clear. I implore the Government, rather than simply imposing more and more housing demands on a part of the country that is already suffering in terms of both infrastructure and environment, to take a more holistic look at why we have migration to the south and east, and why we are not achieving more balanced economic growth across the country.
	I speak, of course, as a midlands MP. Areas throughout the midlands and the north would embrace an opportunity for growth. Have we learned nothing from the 1960s demolition process that gave birth to concrete tower blocks? The Government plan to demolish no fewer than 400,000 Victorian terraces to combat crime.
	It is not just the strategy that undermines communities; it is the use of regionalisation as a means of delivering it that is so damaging. The Deputy Prime Minister's obsession with regionalisation is deeply at odds with the needs of the community. Taking power away from local government and giving it to regional bodies further removed from the locality is deeply unpopular. Even after the resounding rejection of a north-east regional assembly last autumn, the Deputy Prime Minister said stubbornly that he was not giving up on the regional dimension, and he clearly meant it. Since November, we have seen more powers removed from local government and given to regional bodies. The matters over which they have control range from the critical, such as the soon-to-be-announced regional fire control rooms, to the bureaucratic, in the form of regional tobacco strategies. In addition we have regional waste incineration strategies, regional house-building targets, regional planning, regional housing boards and regional transport boards.
	Bypassing local government means bypassing local people and local communities. Communities are strong when they feel empowered and safer when they feel stronger. The signs of the weakening of community safety are all around us. Graffiti, swearing in the street and vandalism are all symptomatic of a lack of consideration for others, but such actions often go well beyond lack of consideration. Late-night drunken behaviour has gone beyond being merely embarrassing. It is now sinister, intimidating and often violent, and it is commonplace. Bit by bit, we are surrendering our town centres to the yobs when night falls, and allowing them to become a social wasteland. I have a 14-year-old daughter, and the prospect of letting her go into the centre of Birmingham at night would fill me with trepidation.
	The philosopher Thomas Hobbes articulated a vision of society in which life was
	"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
	A glance through some of the late-night CCTV footage in many of our town centres conjures up images not far short of that. For the first time there are now 1 million violent crimes a year, and half of them are alcohol-related. The financial cost is put at £12 billion a year; the social cost is almost incalculable.
	My worry is that the Government have accelerated that trend with the rush to introduce late-night licences in existing pubs and bars, and the obstructions that they have created for communities seeking to oppose applications for new licences. I understand that a number of arguments can be advanced in favour of more flexibility on licensing hours, but the Government's approach involves an in-built presumption in favour of extended-licence applications and new applications. Not only is that unfair to the communities affected, but it defies the practical realities of how communities can serve the needs of 24-hour opening.
	In London, for example, I am not convinced that we have the necessary public transport capacity to convey people safely to and from clubs and bars at all hours of the night. That is an issue especially for women. However, not all crime is alcohol derived. More and more is drug fuelled and many acts of yobbery are a symptom of boredom, a lack of social opportunity and a lack of self-respect. Often, that manifests itself on our housing estates and around urban shops.
	There are myriad ways in which the construction of communities themselves can be instrumental in reducing crime. Much research has been undertaken to see how crime can be designed out of new housing estates, but the depressing truth is that the design of 21st century estates seems to have ignored the lessons of 1960s architecture, where rat runs and concealed areas create havens for crime. The research shows how simple things, ranging from the construction of cul-de-sacs to limit-escape routes to the provision of parking spaces outside people's homes so that owners can keep an eye on their cars, are all effective in developing safer communities.
	The fact that the Queen's Speech puts the accent on safer communities is an admission that people do not feel safe in their homes and when they leave their homes. The Prime Minister acknowledged that and said that we need more visible uniformed individuals on the street, but he stopped short of saying police. Is that because the Government have run out of money to provide the real McCoy—beat bobbies with the power of arrest? As the deputy chief constable of north Wales put it:
	"Community Support Officers offer 10% of the powers for about 90% of the cost".
	Hon. Members may like to know that, if all the increase in the police precept had been used for police since 1997, there would be 15,000 more police on the streets by now.

David Davis: How do you know? [Laughter.]

David Miliband: Having changed parties, Mr. Sedgemore may still be ready to ride to the rescue.
	I know that, in recent months. the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has got used to the gentle style, good manners and straight talking of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I suggest, in a spirit of comradeship, that the right hon. Gentleman be more wary when he goes into battle with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who we understand from the newspapers has been in America taking lessons on negative campaigning in primary contests. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be careful.

David Taylor: The early-day motion noted that there was
	"a crisis in children's diet-related health",
	shown by the levels of obesity among children and the appearance in young people of diseases such as type 2 diabetes, which were previously confined to adults.
	In the past 12 months or so, the issue has risen rapidly up the political agenda. It is rare for a TV celebrity publicly to defend any of the founding policies of the welfare state, but in his powerful Channel 4 series "Jamie's School Dinners", Jamie Oliver did just that, and he is to be congratulated on doing so. Something has to be done if we are to arrest the upward trend in poor diet and obesity among children that we have seen over the past decade and the knock-on effects that it will have on future educational achievement and avoidable national health service costs. For example, in 2002 16 per cent. of boys and girls aged two to 15 were obese and almost a third—30 per cent.—were either overweight or obese. Ominously, rates of physical activity are declining. The facts are bleak.
	It is no surprise that the companies currently contracted to cater for schoolchildren and those who sell to that market have been quick to highlight the variety of initiatives and programmes that they have introduced to promote healthy food in schools—coincidentally, since "Jamie's School Dinners" first aired.
	Private contractors are, of course, just reacting to the existence of a private market, and they can only be expected to act in a way that maximises their profits for their shareholders, whatever the sector in which that market operates—a market created by the Conservative Government in 1980. Their catastrophic legislation released local education authorities from their obligation under the Education Act 1944 to provide school meals for all children, and swept away all nutritional considerations for the minority who, because of low parental income, would have to rely on an underfunded, undervalued and stigmatised free school meals service. That came on the heels of the infamous cessation of free school milk, and it was clear that the then new Government were intent on carving up as much of the state school meals service as possible without causing alarm among their shire supporters, but enough to have thrusting free marketers salivating at the prospect of public sector catering contracts free from any inconvenient statutory demands regarding nutritional content.
	A cynic might observe that as the nation's palate has grown more sophisticated and the adult consumer more health-conscious, schoolchildren have softened the blow to the profits of the companies that produce the processed, reclaimed, reformulated foods that are advertised so heavily during children's TV programming. Commercial confidentiality enables the proposition to be kept fact-free. Unison, the Caroline Walker Trust, the National Union of Teachers, Sustain, the Welsh Food Alliance and the Soil Association have long campaigned to restore statutory minimum standards of nutrition in the provision of school food. Sadly, the current reality is a patchwork provision where price is paramount. Children's health—and as a consequence, educational outcomes—are thus subordinated to free market principles and a postcode lottery.
	None the less, the Government are to be applauded for their aims in respect of nutritious school food and healthy eating, which predate Jamie Oliver's campaign for changes to the purchasing, preparation and nutritional value of school food. The healthy living blueprint for schools accelerated the demise of those speechless dispensers of high-sugar, high-salt products, vending machines. I pay tribute to the work of the former Members for Stourbridge and for Croydon, Central and to the Food in Schools Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), but even though the removal of sponsors' names from the covers and the greater promotion of fruit are welcome developments, there is still a long way to go to remove the dietary scourge of vending machines completely.
	The breakfast club initiative has provided thousands of pupils with one of the most important meals of the day—and regularly—whereas previously those same young people started the school day with their cognitive faculties impaired.
	The Department of Health national school fruit scheme from 2000 has conveyed the importance of eating fruit to the under-16s. The creation of the national healthy school standard is already bringing some improvement to the nutritional standard of school food with the long-term aim of reducing rates of childhood obesity.
	My local educational authority is doing much good work. In North-West Leicestershire, 16 primary and five secondary schools are working towards the national healthy school standard. Achievement of that status depends partly on the contents of vending machines on the school site. That is a particularly welcome criterion.
	Latterly, the school food trust and the school meals review panel have been established to help both parents and food nutritional experts develop healthy menus for schools that offer healthy food choices that children will eat. The trust will also offer the sort of independent advice on food and nutrition that many school heads and their catering staff have long asked for. Indeed, the principal of Ibstock community college, of which I am a governor, Bill Kelly, made that very request for independent information on nutrition. I am pleased that the Government are putting together a programme to satisfy that need, and to empower schools with the knowledge that they need to cater successfully for their pupils.
	I am also encouraged by the recent statement by the chair of both the school food trust and the school meals review panel, Suzi Leather, who has said in relation to the work ahead of her:
	"No one should live a shorter or an unhealthier life because they ate school food. No child should disrupt their and others' learning because they are hungry and cannot concentrate. No child should leave school knowing only how to open a packet or tin. No child should be bamboozled into eating a diet which harms them. Standards for school food should be the best that we can do, not the least we can get away with."
	These are laudable sentiments, which I am confident enjoy the support of the whole House, including even those veteran Conservative Members who voted for the 1980 Act, the effect of which continues to impair the skills mix of our economy, and will probably continue to do so for the next decade.
	The Government should accept that despite the restoration of national nutrition standards in April 2001, school meals remain a dangerously neglected aspect of education policy. Dietary junk is still routinely served to our children. We must ensure that the £280 million allocated before the general election reaches children in the form of better food from their school kitchens, and is not swallowed up by existing contractual arrangements, as The Guardian recently said was likely.
	The central tenet of the 1944 Act was for schools to provide a lunchtime meal that was suitable in all respects to be the main meal of the day, along with the free provision of transport, milk and medical and dental treatment for schoolchildren. Local education authorities invariably satisfied this criterion and, despite the odd serving of pink custard and grey stew, the health of children—and, consequentially, that of the nation as a whole—improved immeasurably. We are still reaping the benefits of that policy, and many in the House, particularly on the Government Benches, are living proof of its success.
	Ironically, as we have learned more about diet and healthy eating habits, the nutritional value of food in schools has gone in the opposite direction. It is irrefutable that the most significant blow struck to the nutritional value of school meals was the 1980 Act, ushered in by a Government headed by a grocer's daughter. That is a further irony, upon which I must not dwell.
	From September 2005, new statutory minimum standards for nutrition in school food will be in place, and it is vital that Suzi Leather and her teams resist the predictable overtures from companies that benefit from the lax stop-gap introduced in 2001 for nutritional content—or rather, food group standards.
	The school meals review panel's Department for Education and Skills remit is strongly to consider the introduction of nutrient-based nutritional standards, using the Caroline Walker Trust guidelines as a starting point, and in doing so to bear in mind issues of cost and implementation. While use of these guidelines as a starting point is most welcome, it is the bearing in mind of the issues of cost and implementation that rings alarm bells in my mind.
	Given the uneven nature of the provision of school meals and the present shortfall in nutritional content, I respectfully suggest that issues of cost and implementation should not be the concern of the review panel. The needs of the private sector run counter to the short-term health and educational needs of children and the longer-term public health needs of society, and to raise that aspect in guidance to the panel smacks of an eventual compromise.
	Then we have the systemic and myopic use of the private finance initiative in education. The appalling failure of the engineering firm W. S. Atkins in delivering even a modest education service for the children and parents of Southwark, one of London's poorest boroughs, should make the Government wary of promoting profit in the education sector. Sadly, some Ministers remain unremittingly upbeat about the continued involvement of private finance in education, and frustratingly reluctant to admit it when the policy fails children, teachers and parents, as has happened in Southwark and elsewhere.
	It appears that the lessons from handing an engineering firm the contract to teach the national curriculum in Southwark schools have not yet been acknowledged by the Government, although the private sector is certainly mindful of Atkins' failure towards children and parents in Southwark, and the negative publicity that that rightly generated. An analysis of local education authorities in The Times Educational Supplement found that performance in the public sector surpassed that in LEAs that had been privatised. Indeed, there is a long list of LEAs that remain trapped in binding direct service provider contracts with private companies such as Amey, Serco and the unfortunately named Tribal Group.
	As with its involvement in the NHS, the private sector's attitude to state education is generally to cherry-pick the most lucrative parts of the service. Catering, along with building construction and maintenance, is certainly one of the most profitable aspects of the state education service. Merton council in south-west London has judged that its six new PFI schools could be exempt from new Government guidelines on nutrition under the terms of the 25-year PFI contract, which includes catering. That is a shocking conclusion at which to have arrived. There are 450 other PFI schools in England and Wales. No doubt the redeployment of Lord Adonis as the Education and Skills Minister in another place will increase the flow of private profiteers into our schools, but if that brand-new peer and his backers think that that is the way to reform education for the benefit of the many and not the few, they really are in another place.
	One of the most important and successful aspects of "Jamie's School Dinners" was publicising the poor conditions, lack of training and low pay with which kitchen staff in our schools must cope. The average wage for school kitchen staff remains about £82. As Unison has observed, attacks on retainer pay and ineligibility for jobseeker's allowance during the holidays has locked in a meagre national income with an hourly rate below the statutory minimum wage.
	The dinner lady—more than 98 per cent. of school catering staff are female—is one of the most important and remembered workers in state schools. Those of us who went to such schools tend to remember the invariably good-humoured staff who served us our food for much of our time there. However, little did we realise the extent to which they were exploited. The Government have known that since 1997, and finally did something about it last year in the public health White Paper, "Choosing Health". The creation of a new vocational qualification is good news for the present and future Nora Sands in our school kitchens, but guarantees must be secured that catering staff, as we should now call them, will receive pay for attending training and other prescribed national vocational courses, so perhaps the Minister would like to state the Government's feelings on that subject when she responds.
	It is also good to hear that the Learning and Skills Council will be allocated some of the £280 million to introduce a new ladder of qualifications to train staff in the basics of hygiene and nutrition, as well as the necessary preparation and cooking skills that will help our school kitchens and their suppliers to move away from the oven and towards the stove. I will be grateful if the Minister confirms the amount that the training programme will receive, how the programme will be implemented and, again, whether catering staff will be paid to attend training courses, as they would in any other industry. The Government must follow their bold and progressive streak—we are told that we are better when we are bolder—and we must resist the predictable and hollow accusations of nanny state-ism from the usual suspects, such as the Daily Mail.
	An attractive menu to follow could be the Soil Association's "Food for Life" school meals action pack. It recommends that at least 50 per cent. of meal ingredients should be sourced from the local region, that at least 30 per cent. of food served should have improved nutrient quality, that three quarters of all food should be made from unprocessed ingredients, that school lunches should meet the nutrition targets set by the Caroline Walker Trust, and finally that, via the national curriculum, better classroom education on food and sustainability issues should be implemented.
	In closing, may I say that there are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets? However, present school menus still have far too many unhealthy choices. More and more schools and parents are trying hard to promote healthier eating and combat the immense power of advertisers and peer groups; as a father of four daughters, I know how difficult that task can be. We have a moral, social and economic duty to back them to the hilt in their work to persuade children to be non- conformist in their dietary decisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister, whom I greatly respect, describe how she plans so to do.

Maria Eagle: I was just coming on to issues raised by hon. Friend around compulsory competitive tendering, best value and the impact of PFIs. He has made his views clear and I listened carefully to what he had to say. I hope that he will accept that the PFI is intended to deliver more cost-effective public services by involving the private sector more directly in provision. It has an important role to play in securing a modern educational infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century. It can bring better value for taxpayers' money by harnessing private sector expertise and innovation and by allocating risk to the partner best placed to manage it. It is not entirely without potential downsides—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.